The mass media is strangely silent on some very real recent events. What could be behind this news blackout? And what does it portend for the future?

“When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.”— Yevgeny Yevtushenko

​​One of my close friends asked me why I write about controversial social and political matters, given my business is in telecoms. Doesn’t it just confuse people about my professional identity, and alienate some readers and clients? Yet I gladly accept the risk!

The reason is simple: I cannot write a newsletter headlined Future of Communications whilst ignoring the figural communications happenings of our times. To do so would be to lie to you through omission. I am also a father to two fine daughters. I believe there is an absolute moral imperative, having brought them into this world, to confront any evil they may otherwise encounter.

So this isn’t going to be a light-hearted essay, I am afraid. Bear with me, as we peer into something rather dark and scary.

Imagine for a moment that there was a freak cyclone that came in to your nearest city, and caused enormous wind and rain damage to property. That would be newsworthy, yes? If it wasn’t reported, despite all the wreckage and disruption, then you would be curious as to why it was not being mentioned, correct?

Now consider what would happen if some A-list celebrity entertainers — let’s pick Jay-Z and Beyoncé as archetypes of the genre — held an impromptu concert on a popular beach. Hundreds of people would be present, all uploading their pictures and videos to Instagram and YouTube. That would be in the news, don’t you think? And its omission from the tabloids and TV talk shows would say something rather interesting, wouldn’t you agree?

What if, for a moment, a high-profile public figure — the First Lady of the US — wore some fashion clothing with a provocative message. After all, everything has a meaning, whether intentional or not. Her choice could be seen as highly significant, I would consider. Should it be in the news? I would expect so! And would an omertà on FLOTUS overcoats strike you as odd? I do hope so!

These kinds of natural, cultural and political events are deemed worthy of column inches and TV schedule time. So wouldn’t you find it just a little bit off-kilter if matters of far, far greater significance were being ignored by the corporate media?

The United States — the world’s only military and economic superpower — has been in a formal state of emergency since 21st December 2017. The stated reasons for the invocation of these formidable executive powers are human rights abuses and corruption. You can check it for yourself — along with the huge asset seizure list on the DOJ website.​I just want to pick on an aspect of this situation, one that is conspicuous by its complete absence from the mainstream news narrative: there is an absolute blackout. Sealed filings (presumed to be indictments — each potentially naming tens of people) have been piling up in America’s Federal courts since last autumn. The rate of filing is around 50x (and more!) what it was previously: 5000-6000 a month, whereas there are usually just over 1000 each year. So we’re approaching two orders of magnitude increase in throughput.

​Reasonable people might vehemently disagree on how to interpret this data — as being sinister or reassuring — but its veracity is not in dispute (to the best of my knowledge). Any lawyer with a PACER account can go and check the numbers, as it is semi-public information.

So given that: (A) there is a formal state of emergency with powers to match, and (B) convictions for human trafficking and child pornography have already rocketed ten-fold, plus (C) a hundred-fold increase in indictments is filling the judicial pipeline… is it not reasonable to conclude that (D) there is a prospect of mass arrests ahead in 2018, as the corruption clean-up hits full-on?

The silence of the news media on this subject is absolutely deafening.

We culturally treat the “official” corporate media as having a monopoly on truth: it defines what is acceptable to say in polite company, and what is too outrageous. If it’s on the CNN or BBC websites, then Wikipedia thinks that’s good enough as a proxy for factual accuracy and citation legitimacy. It is also respectable to repeat what the TV news says, no matter how mendacious. The opinions of the media class are treated (by themselves) as being those of all people of good conscience. The impression is given that they are also views held by the majority — even when those views are manifestly rejected in plebiscites.

The problem is that the interests of corporate media by necessity represent those of its investors (and spookier stakeholders) — not ordinary citizens, nor even the most valiant journalist. Telling people extremely difficult truths about the nature of the society we live in doesn’t help sell advertising inventory. Our society’s hidden horrors — like slavery, paedophilia, and blackmail — are mostly kept out of sight and out of mind, replaced by fear porn and empty gossip.

It strikes me that we are in an extremely dangerous situation. There is only one possible conclusion that I can come to that explains this blackout, given the facts: the mass media itself is a key target of the corruption purge to come. They are collectively compromised, and have been for decades. It’s a bit hard to write about VoIP or SD-WAN as being defining trends in the communications industry, given what is happening in the socio-political!

Whilst this media industry fall from grace is bad enough, it is not the thing that is most concerning to me. There is also a scary silence of the masses, who so far refuse to pay attention to even a national state of emergency. Their reality is completely defined by the nightly news anchor regurgitating the day’s official talking points. Since the media fails to highlight these important national events, making them figural in the audience member’s mind, they simply disappear into a memory hole and cease to officially exist!

Whirlwinds, lip-sync and fashionista jackets may fill the screen, but they aren’t what is important right now. Every responsible citizen should be insisting on a truly free press, one that offers the public the full story. Yet relatively few people are demanding media accountability for this particular manifest and massive lapse. Ask yourself: Was I aware of this? Is it true? Does it really matter? How do I feel about it? What should I do?​The media wolves have been guarding the public sheep, whilst telling them they are harmless sheep dogs. Meanwhile, the legislative shepherd — whose dedication to ovine longevity is dubious at best — appears to be overly interested in lamb recipes. We’ve all been fleeced, and there’s a storm approaching. Time to bleat loudly for attention, and hope for rapid rescue by some judicial animal lovers.​

“An educated public is the keystone of our arch of government.”— Thomas Jefferson

​All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

​Excerpts from the press conference of the Trump-Putin summit were displayed in mostly extremely cynical ways all over the western press. This reaction has been so spectacular that it has become an event in its own right. What does this tell us about American politics and press in general?

In this program, Dr. Vladislav Krasnov, former professor and head of Russian studies at Monterey Institute of International Studies, and the President of the Russia & American Goodwill Association expresses his point of view.

Dr. Krasnov starts the program by explaining why America's reaction to the summit did not come as a complete shock to him: "I have been watching the decline of civility in the United States and pretty much in the rest of the western world since 1991. I was a defector for the Soviet Union when it was a totalitarian, ideological monopolistic country, and in order to find out what was going on in the world, I had to defect. I am grateful to the United States that I was given a home, refuge, and an ability to study different sources, to understand different ideologies, different opinions. At that time, the United States was a beacon of hope because there was a plurality of different opinions. But now, since 1991, I look with more and more despair at what is happening to America, particularly as it pertains to be the leader of the western world."

Dr. Krasnov feels that this is happening because America developed a sense of hubris after seeing that the Soviet Union collapsed. It felt that now, it had won. "I think that the Soviet Union collapsed due to internal problems. They [the Americans] became too proud, and you know what happened to Icarus and his father Daedalus when they flew to close to the sun….This hubris has manifest itself into two new words. One is called neoliberalism and the other is called neo-conservatism, and they presume that both are good for the whole world….The issue is not that Russia is doing something wrong. There are many wrong things in Russia, but Russia is not a totalitarian country, it has tendencies which are leaning towards more plurality, whereas in the United States — and I am very grateful to the United States for giving me refuge — but now the tendency in the United States is towards monopoly and monopoly of opinion. The actual power in the United States has probably now shifted to the media. The power of the media is so enormous that it is a kind of totalitarianism…"

Host John Harrison asks why Jo Biden accused Trump of ‘embracing our No. 1 Enemy' and asks is this what America really thinks, that Russia is America's No. 1 enemy? Dr. Krasnov says that America has decided itself that Russia is an enemy. "I don't think that after 1991 Russia has projected itself as an enemy. If anything, the United States has been more aggressive. The decision to retain NATO was one thing, but when they decided to expand NATO closer to Russia's borders, and thus infringe on Russian sovereignty…it's a natural reaction of any country, whatever the political system, but the people in charge of each country have to take care of the sovereignty of their borders…"

Dr. Krasnov says that a widening gap is opening up between what leaders say and what is reported in the media. "I read the Washington Post every day, I used to when I lived in Washington and I do it now, out of habit, and I know many of the guys who write those things, so I am in touch with both the United States and Russia, and when I watched the event in Helsinki it was apparent that there was one story which is presented by president Trump, and President Putin, and another story which is presented by the media. I also read press releases from the White House; I have to, as President of the Russia America Goodwill Association. I am non-partisan, I am not a political person…my main task is to preserve and strengthen peace which is being severely threatened now throughout the world. The chance of nuclear war and self-annihilation of the whole earth is now higher than ever."

To the question: "how many Americans actually, believe what they read in the press?" Dr. Krasnov answers: ‘Actually many don't believe it. The media is now despondent; they do not know what to do. …I want Americans to try to be decent to one another, including the media people, to try to show some objectivity and for the sake of objectivity, they could downplay their hateful positions towards one politician or another. Let diplomacy win against emotionalism, both leaders have the strong points and weak points, let them negotiate, and essentially I think that the former US Ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, who I respect very highly, the one who served in Russia, just before the Soviet Union collapsed, he said that we should go not only back to the classics, to Plato and Aristotle, but also to our own sixth President of the United States — John Quincy Adams. He suggested that the United States should not go abroad in search of monsters to try and destroy them, it should protect its own liberty and not try and impose their notion of liberty on other people…"

Dr. Krasnov referred to the British political theorist and philosopher Edmund Burke who insisted that each country, including the fledgling United States of America (at the time), has the right to go it alone, that each country has the right to choose its own form of government. "We need more democracy in Russia and in the United States", Dr. Krasnov says, "but the moment we say that the whole world has to be democratic, we are undermining the whole basis of civility."​We'd love to get your feedback at radio@sputniknews.com

​All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

President Trump's warm words for Vladimir Putin and his failure to endorse U.S. intelligence community claims about alleged Russian meddling have been called "treasonous" and the cause of a "national security crisis." There is a crisis, says Prof. Stephen F. Cohen, but one of our own making. Visit https://therealnews.com

​All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

Our attention has focused for the past 18 months on the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. If true, these seemingly heinous acts are said to strike at the very roots of American democracy. Understandably so. Someone spending $95,000 to prise out of the Democratic National Committee vaults details of how DebbieWasserman-Schultz tried to rig the primaries in Hillary Clinton’s favor constitutes a grave threat to the integrity of the American electoral process. When we add to that offense the outrageous release of the transcript from MsClinton’s highly lucrative chat with the financial heavies at Goldman Sachs, our heads swoon at the audacity of the perpetrators. So dense is this thicket, so heavily freighted with consequence, that the most diligent mind struggles to absorb it all during the lazy dog days of summer.​An effort to escape from this unnatural burden led me to boldly take the risk of flying UNITED toward a salubrious destination. The serenity of those ‘friendly skies’ provided the leisure to contemplate other recent news – in particular, the doings of the United States in upholding the principles of national sovereignty and political freedom elsewhere in the world. A short list of the places where we have been active follows.

CheersMichael Brennermbren@pitt.edu1. In ENGLAND, Trump aggressively promoted Boris Johnson as a brilliant leader despite his direct challenge to Prime Minister Theresa May last week.2. Also re. ENGLAND, Sam Brownback, the US ambassador for international religious freedom, protested to the British Ambassador the jailing of racist agitator Tommy Robinson who targets Muslims

3. In SCOTLAND, Trump lashed out at Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, with a barrage of highly personal insults.

4. In GERMANY, Trump has striven to weaken the position of Chancellor Angela Merkel through denunciations of her judgment and domestic policies

5. In POLAND, the Trump administration has lent its full support to the ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic government when it was facing opposition to its autocratic moves

6. In HUNGARY, it has done the same in support of Prime Minister Viktor Orban

7. In SAUDI ARABIA, Trump warmly embraced Crown Prince Mohammed ben-Salman despite his shake-down of other Saudi leaders and dangerous crack-down on the Shi’ite community

8. In ECUADOR, Washington has encouraged current Prime Minister Lenin Moreno to pursue a vendetta against former President Rafael Correa because of the latter’s social democratic policies and unwillingness to kow-tow to American business interests

9. In NICARAGUA, the United States is backing the campaign to overthrow the democratically government of Daniel Ortega

10. In BRAZIL, the Trump administration gave its full public backing to the ‘constitutional’ coup against Prime Minister Dilma Rousseff because of her independent foreign policy line on issues that went against the grain of American policies and her mild challenge to American financial interests

11. In ARGENTINA, the CIA/FBI connived with political foes of then president Cristina Kirchner to resurrect long discredited accusations that she was implicated somehow in the 1994bombing of a Buenos Aires synagogue ascribed (probably falsely) to Iran. That contributed to her loss in a run-off toMauricio Macri – scion to one of Argentina’s biggest fortunes and graduate of Columbia Business School.

The week after his inauguration Macri flew to New York to cede $6.5billion dollars to Wall Street hedge funds which had speculated in Argentine debt in 2001 and was being hotly contested in the courts. He also submitted to a Washington demand that he give the U.S. armed forces basing rights in PATAGONIA. The Pentagon evidently sees the base as strategic counter to a move by Russia, China or Iran to threaten America by striking through the soft underbelly of the Western Hemisphere. That is in violation of the Argentinian constitution. But, then again, isn’t that what indebted friends are for?

12. In HONDURAS, the United States strong-armed the OAS not to penalize the government of President Juan Orlando Hernandez for its blatant rigging of the election last year

13. In BOLIVIA, the U.S. has been conspiring with business interests and the oligarchical elite to overturn the government of reformist President Evo Morales. In the recent past, the American ambassador coordinated their efforts to topple Morales through orchestrated demonstrations in the mining and business hub of Santa Cruz.

14. In PARAGUAY, Washington encouraged the oligarchical establishment to usurp the powers of the Presidency by impeaching the first progressive head of state in over 60 years. In 2008 the voters chose Fernando Lugo, a former Roman Catholic Bishop whose reformist policies were anathema to landed interests and big business. His governing as a Gospel Christian could not be tolerated. He therefore was duly impeached on absurd trumped-up by a simple majority vote of the Colorado Party opposition in the legislature. The elites' economic performance while in office since 1945 had as its greatest accomplishment the maintenance of the world’s only railroad still fueled by wood – evidently an attraction of some sort to the Obama administration in its promotion of a neo-Liberal economic order.

15. In VENEZUELA, the United States has used every weapon short of military force to overthrow the democratically elected government of President Nicolas Maduro

16. In UKRAINE, the United States continues its military, financial, and political support for President Poroshenko whose was brought to power by an American orchestrated violent coup against his democratically elected predecessor

17. In RUSSIA, the United States pursues a relentless campaign of slander against the democratically elected government of President Vladimir Putin and provides direct support via its embassy to opponents

18. In LIBYA, the United States and its European allies have arbitrarily attempted to impose an ersatz government lodged on a yacht in Algiers harbor that has no popular support or legitimacy

19. In SYRIA, the United States has stationed troops against the will of the sovereign government in Damascus and provides material support to jihadist opponents (al-Qaeda & Assoc) fighting to overturn it.

20. In IRAN, Trump leads a thinly concealed campaign to overthrow the current government

21. In YEMEN, the United States has chosen sides in a civil war that involves participation in a homicidal air campaign carried out by Saudi Arabia and other outside parties

22. In the PHILIPPINES, Trump personally has bolstered President Rodrigo Duterte in his program to build a lawless autocracy

23. In SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, the United States is actively involved in the internal politics of a dozen or so countries

24. In LEBANON, The United States has been relentlessly engaged in a campaign to consolidate the power of its US-dependent government led by Rafik Hariri and to undercut Hezbullah and President Aoun

25. In AFGHANISTAN…..

26. In IRAQ…

25 - INFINITY

Then, lest we forget, there are the sub rosa programs of the United States to strengthen democracy world-wide. One: the comprehensive surveillance of electronic communications globally. The product upon occasion makes its way into the hands of our favorites in the political game of other countries. Two: we regularly conduct drone strikes on persons WE determine are a menace to somebody else’s welfare and serenity, e.g. in Pakistan, Libya. By some stretch of the imagination, killings by HELLFIRE missile on their own soil, too, might be considered political interference. Three: more specifically, cyber attacks on sensitive computers and data banks, e.g. STUXNET in Iran

So it goes.

​​All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putinhold joint press conference following meeting.​

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

​IntroductionOn 1 November 2017, in the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House for Russian Diaspora Studies,[1] the historian Vitaly Shitov's album "The House of Ipatiev – a chronicleindocumentsandphotographs from 1877-1977" was presented to a large audience." The focus was on the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution, and its content extended far beyond the House of Ipatiev.[2] The discussion was lead by Alexei Kazakov, a publisher and literary critic from Chelyabinsk. Among the participants were Lyudmila Lykova (PhD history), the senior specialist of the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History (RGASPI); Alina Chadaeva, a Moscow writer, and myself. There follows an account providing detail beyond what I was able to present during my presentation.

I was pleased to speak in the Solzhenitsyn House, of all places . Many years of friendship and communication, through correspondence and by phone, connected me with Alexander Solzhenitsyn. My doctoral thesis of 1974 on the polyphony of the novel "In the First Circle" was one of the first in the United States dedicated to Solzhenitsyn. Later, I expanded my analysis to "Cancer Ward" and "August 1914", and, in 1979, I published the book Solzhenitsyn and Dostoesvsky: A Study in the Polyphonic Novel.[3] In 2012 it appeared in the Russian translation.

In the years of perestroika, while writing a book about reforms in the USSR, I transferred the polyphonic method, formulated by Mikhail Bakhtin[4] for literary criticism, to a survey of new thinking in the USSR. ​

[1] "The House of Russians abroad named after Alexander Solzhenitsyn" in Moscow is a unique complex for the study of Russian diaspora that combines a museum, archive, library, research facilities and educational center. It is named after its principal founder. See more https://moscow.arttube.ru/institution/The-house-of-Russian-abroad-named-after-Alexander-Solzhenitsyn_en/

[4] Mikhail Bakhtin (1895 –1975) a Russian philosopher, literary critic, and scholar who worked on literary theory, ethics, and the philosophy of language. Some of his works are translated into English. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984) Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and trans. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakhtin

​In the book, in my efforts to oppose the Western sovietologists who cheered for Gorbachev’s ‘reform communism’, I presented an alternative collection of the voices of glasnost that called, not for reviving communism, but for reviving the root system of pre-Soviet Russia and transforming the country on new non-Communist foundations. I made it just in time. My book called Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth[5] was released in 1991, so, before the collapse of the USSR. I was able to present a brand new copy to Boris Yeltsin at the First Congress of Compatriots in Moscow, immediately after he announced the replacement of the red flag of communism with the national tricolor one. In 2014 the book was published in Russian translation Новая Россия: от коммунизма к национальному возрождению.[6]

I recall that shortly after arriving in the US in 1974, Solzhenitsyn appealed to Russian émigrés to send him all kinds of memorabilia and artifacts of tsarist Russia that would help in recreating an objective picture of the Russian history that had been hidden, distorted or simply destroyed by the Soviet authorities. It became clear that he was not only a great writer, but also the first chronicler of our tortured history. Though I possessed no artifacts of the tsarist era, I considered it an honor to pass my own American papers to the Solzhenitsyn House for Russian Emigres Studies. My archive is currently being cleared by customs.

With all due respect to Alexei Kazakov, who invited me to speak, I would like to shift your attention from Yekaterinburg to Perm: from the now non-existent Ipatiev House to the building in Perm that has survived and is currently known as the Korolevskiye Nomera Hotel.

Built shortly before the revolution by the merchant Korolev as a fashionable hotel, this building is known among the locals as the ‘Royal Rooms’ because it was once used by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov, the younger brother of Tsar Nicholas, who abdicated in his favor.

Some historians even call him the de jure Emperor Michael II, although he "ruled" for less than a day and was never crowned. It was from this building that Michael and his secretary, Nikolai Johnson, were abducted by a group of local Chekists[1] on the night of 12-13 June 1918, and probably shot.

No remains have ever been found. This atrocity in Perm, which took place five weeks before the murders at Yekaterinburg, resulted in the massacre of alleged “monarchists” in Perm and throughout Russia. It also opened a whole series of the fall of monarchies in Austria-Hungary, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, Italy, and later in Spain. The Perm atrocity was the trigger that caused monarchies to fall like dominoes. In Perm, the tactics of the Bolsheviks aimed not only to terrify and intimidate their opponents, but also to cover up all traces of the crime.

[1] Chekist is an agent of the Cheka (ChK), generally an agent of Cheka and its descendants NKVD, KGB, and FSB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekist

‘Michael as the Game-Winner

The Bolsheviks were clearly aware that the former tsar Nicholas was a lost cause. As for Michael, he had not renounced the throne, but empowered the Constituent Assembly (hereinafter the CA) to make the final decision, meaning that, the opponents of Bolshevism could still win the game. However, having lost the popular vote in a country-wide ballot, the Bolsheviks forcibly disbanded the CA in January 1918.

By the summer of 1918 the memory of the Bolsheviks suffering a crushing defeat in the elections to the CA was still alive: after all, the Bolsheviks gained no more than just a quarter of the votes in the most democratic of elections to be held at that time anywhere in the world. The Bolsheviks were painfully aware that the disbanding of the CA had led to mass demonstrations by workers. Maxim Gorky, the most popular “proletarian” writer whom the Bolsheviks had previously glorified as the ‘Storm Petrel’ of the Revolution, decisively condemned the disbanding of the CA. [1] The Bolsheviks knew that it was not only the monarchists and liberal-conservative “cadets” who have opposed them, but also the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists, and Zionists, who, together, had elected a far greater number of CA delegates.[2]

The remains of neither Michael nor Johnson have been found so far and nothing is being done at a state level to find them. It can be said that the Bolsheviks succeeded in their tactics of portraying their opponents as retrograde “monarchists” and dismissing the democratic thrust of Michael’s one-day “rule”.

[1] Gorky wrote in the Novaya Zhizn newspaper: "On 5 January 1918, unarmed St. Petersburg democrats – workers and employees - peacefully demonstrated in honor of the Constituent Assembly. The best of the Russian people had lived for almost a hundred years with the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly, as a political body that would provide Russian democracy with the chance to express the will of the people. .. ‘Pravda’ lies when it writes that the 5th of January demonstration was co-organized by the bourgeois, the bankers, etc. and that it was the ‘bourgeois’… ‘Pravda’ lies, as it knows perfectly well that the ‘bourgeois’ had nothing to rejoice about over the setting-up of the Constituent Assembly, they have nothing to be happy about over the presence of 246 socialists of one party and 140 Bolsheviks."

Having fallen out with Lenin, Gorky was forced in 1921 to emigrate. After returning to the USSR in 1928, he became a hostage until his death in 1936. The circumstances of his death remain on the conscience of Soviet authorities. http://dugward.ru/library/gorkiy/gorkiy_nesvoevremennye_mysli.html

[2] According to Wikipedia, the defense of the Constituent Assembly became one of the slogans of the White Movement. By the summer of 1918, several Socialist-Revolutionary and pro-Socialist-Revolutionary governments had formed in the vast territory of the Volga Region and Siberia, which had begun an armed struggle against the Bolsheviks. A number of CA members headed by Viktor Chernov moved to Samara, where they created the Committee of CA members, KOMUCH, and another part of the deputies created their own committee in Omsk. In September 1918 at the State Conference in Ufa, KOMUCH and other regional governments united, electing a provisional All-Russian Directory headed by a right-wing Socialist-Revolutionary N.D. Avksentyev. One of the tasks of the Directory was the restoration of the Constituent Assembly in Russia.https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Всероссийское_учредительное_собрание

​For me Michael has personal significance. I was born a couple of blocks from the Korolevskiye Nomera. One of the brutal memories of my childhood was the ban on entering this "terrible and sinister" building. It was forbidden even to ask what had happened there. Such attempts to kill a child's curiosity at its root played a role in my decision to go to the ends of the Earth to find out the truth.

By the time I returned to my native Perm twenty-nine years after my defection to Sweden in October 1962, I knew what had happened there. In September 1991, together with a group of relatives and friends, I nailed a memorial wreath to the wall of the hotel on No. 5, Karl Marx Street. In the presence of several journalists and former labor camp prisoners, the action was consecrated by a priest, the son of one of my childhood friends, who had gone through the GULAG himself.

The author of the article is seen, in September 1991, nailing the first wreath prior to the installation, in early 1992, of the first memorial plaque to Mikhail and Johnson on the Korolevskiye Nomera building at No. 5 Karl Marx Street (now again under its original name, Sibirskaya Str.) ​

A couple of months later, I authorized my relatives to hang a new memorial plaque on the building to “Mikhail Romanov and Brian Johnson– innocent martures, murdered without trial or investigation".

Since then, in Perm, there has arisen a movement for honoring the memory of Michael and Johnson. First, the original name of the street was restored: it is no longer “Karl Marx Street”, but Sibirskaya (Siberian) Street. After all, it was part of Russia’s main highway to the expanses of Siberia. Then a collection of archival materials and other books were published, a film was made, a memorial cross erected, annual forums have taken place and, since 2007, annual religious processions have been held. At the request of the Perm regional branch of the Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIK)[3], Michael was officially rehabilitated in 2009, a year after the rehabilitation of Nicholas II.

I myself spoke at forums in Moscow, St Petersburg, Kronstadt, Murmansk and Varzuga, Lokot and Bryansk, Pskov, Sharya, and in the Crimea. I have also spoken in English at the Russian Cultural Center in the Russian Embassy in Washington. In 2011, I published a collection entitled "The Perm Cross: Michael Romanov" («Пермский крест: Михаил Романов»)[4] in order to show that the veneration of Michael's memory is not a local "Perm eccentricity", but a search for historical truth, without which no pillar of power can stand for too long.

Cover of the book by Vladislav Krasnov "The Perm Cross: Michael Romanov"

I take this opportunity to thank the speakers here: Alexei Kazakov, Lyudmila Lykova and Alina Chadaeva, as well as the dozens of activists from Perm and other cities that voluntarily carry out this national history mission. Our resources are very limited and the Perm authorities have not yet bothered to create neither a museum, nor even a room with a staff worker, to keep track of the research and findings pertaining to the memory of the last legitimate ruler of tsarist Russia. Fortunately, from the early 1990s, Vyacheslav Dimov, a teacher at the Sergey Diaghilev Gymnasium, has created and selflessly runs the Virtual Museum of Mikhail Romanov, which collects all pertinent materials of the movement.[3]

Hegumen Bartholomew consecrating the penitential cross erected in the memory of Michael in Perm on 12 June 2010

Meeting of monarchists in Sologubovka on 16 March 2017

In March 2017, I was invited to participate in an activists’ meeting of the country’s monarchists, organized by Anatoly Stepanov, editor-in-chief of the patriotic site, the Russian People's Line (RNL), which has also carried my articles.[1] The people who gathered there were quite notable, including several of my friends. They are well educated and deeply care about the future of our country. The meeting took place on 16 March (3 March old style), that is one hundred years to the day since Michael issued Manifesto in response to the unexpected abdication of Tsar Nicholas in his favor.

Alas, of all those gathered in the church building in Sologubovka, a village near St. Petersburg–and there were a good hundred of them–almost nobody mentioned Michael. The prevailing tone of the meeting was that Tsar Nicholas did not willingly abdicate, but rather was removed from the throne in a conspiracy by his generals. If so, then Michael’s manifesto, issued in response to the abdication, was not worth talking about.

[1] http://ruskline.ru/author/k/krasnov_vladislav_georgievich/

In my speech, I recalled some of the facts that the current neophyte monarchists somehow manage to ignore–trying to downplay historical events with hindsight [2]. Referring to Nicholas' words ‘All around me there is treachery, cowardice, and deceit’, they see them as a reference to the "conspiracy of his generals". This version of history is now being replicated on the national Kultura (Culture) TV Channel.[3]

However, they forget that the Tsar himself appointed the people who supposedly indulged in these vices. Or was he just imagining it? After all, each of the five generals who recommended abdication was immersed in the same atmosphere of treachery, cowardice and deceit as their subordinates were. The inept conduct of an unnecessary war, magnified by the skillful anti-war propaganda of the Bolsheviks, financed from abroad, led to such a general mistrust of power that ‘treachery, cowardice and deceit’ seemed ubiquitous. Or were they just imagined as looming out from every corner?

As for the generals, I surmise they did aspire to work for the good of Russia, no less than did the Tsar himself. It is fitting here to quote from Solzhenitsyn's "Reflections on the February Revolution": “It was not in a material sense that the throne gave way, but, much earlier, it had given way in a spiritual sense, both its own and that of the government ... The February revolution had been lost by the authorities even before the revolution itself began”. TURMOIL in their minds led to TURMOIL in the country.

[3] From 5 February 2018 on the channel "Rossia K" - the premiere of the documentary series "The Conspiracy of Generals" https://tvkultura.ru/article/show/article_id/220847/

​‘Milestones’ are not noticed, and the lessons of 1905 are not learned

Solzhenitsyn was right when he deduced that the crisis of the autocracy in February 1917 from events of the revolution of 1905, and possibly even earlier. By 1909, the revolution’s most thoughtful intellectual protagonists, including former Marxists, horrified by the cruelty and absurdity of bloody street battles, realized what had happened and published a collection of "Vekhi (Milestones)” («Вехи»),[1] condemning the violent tactics. Alas, the lessons of the "Milestones" were not mastered by the intelligentsia. The bet they placed on violence, as the fastest way to achieve equality in the country, continued to grow. In 1911 Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin was assassinated by the terrorist Mordko Bogrov (МордкоБогров). [2]

I remember how, after the publication of "August 1914" in the United States, a campaign against Solzhenitsyn broke out with allegation of "anti-Semitism" seen in his portrayal of Bogrov as a Jew. At the conference on Slavic Studies in Washington, I spoke in Solzhenitsyn's defense against this slander,[3] especially since there are also positive images of Jews in his novel. The special absurdity of Bogrov’s crime was that Stolypin had actually done a lot to alleviate the legal status of the Jews, despite the resistance of the autocracy.

The monarchists in Sologubovka have a poor understanding of Russian history if they think that the 1917 revolution would not have occurred were it not for the ‘treachery’ of some generals. Such vague accusations are offensive to the honor of the heroes of the White armies, many of whom fought not for the monarchy, but rather, like Michael, set their hopes on the CA or some other democratic process in order to achieve reconciliation of society after their victory over the Bolsheviks.

At least one White army general, Vladimir Kappel (Владимир Каппель),[4] fought with the troops of the Samara KOMUCH, the Committee of the Constituent Assembly. Just about the only White general to have raised the flag for monarchy was General Ungern von Sternberg (Унгерн фон Штернберг), [5] who fought in Siberia and Mongolia. Brave and decisive man, he was also cruel and eccentric. However, even he had enough sense to have on the flag the name of Michael rather than Nicholas. With all due respect to the martyrdom of Nicholas II and his family, by and large, the White Army generals knew that the autocracy was a lost cause. Today’s Russian revisionists forget that the hurricane of anti-monarchism during World War I had swept away not only the autocracy in Russia, but also the Kaiser of Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor and the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, and subsequently, the monarchies in Italy and Spain. The age of the proletarian leaders, the duces, the fuhrers, the caudillos and the presidents, replaced them.

​[3] SOLZHENITSYN AND ANTI-SEMITISM: A NEW DEBATE. By RICHARD GRENIER/Published: November 13, 1985http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/13/books/solzhenitsyn-and-anti-semitism-a-new-debate.html?pagewanted=all

[4] Vladimir Kappel (1883 –1920), an outstanding commander, participant in the First World War and the Civil War. In 1918, being the head of the People's Army of the KOMUCH, general Kappel captured Kazan from the Reds. A legendary figure in the White movement, he started as a hero, and ended as a martyr. http://100.histrf.ru/commanders/kappel-vladimir-oskarovich/

[5] Roman von Ungern-Sternberg (1885–1921), commander during the Civil War period, Major-General (1918). He graduated from the Pavlovsk Military School (1908), served in the Transbaikal and Amur Cossack troops. In the WWI he commanded a regiment. From the end of 1917, together with the ataman G.M. Semenov participated in the formation of the Special Manchu detachment against Soviet troops. In 1919 commanded the Asian Cavalry Division. In October 1920, he raided Mongolia, occupied by Chinese invaders. In February 1921 he stormed Urga, defeating the Chinese. Mongolia’s independence was restored.http://irkipedia.ru/content/ungern_fon_shternberg_roman_fedorovich_istoricheskaya_enciklopediya_sibiri_2009

​Romanovs take pride in Michael

Unlike our home-grown neophyte monarchists, those people who have real grounds to consider themselves monarchists, and even heirs to the throne, these people identify their fate with that of Russia. With dignity and confidence they say that the Russian people are capable of choosing the form of governance that is optimal for our own, and for future generations.

Article 4, paragraph 2 of their Charter states:

2. "Members of the Romanov Family Association agree that all questions relating to the form of government in Russia and ... all dynastic issues can be resolved only by the great Russian people through "universal, direct, equal and secret ballot" in accordance with the Manifesto of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, signed after the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II ".[1]

The Manifesto of Michael was the basis for the rule of the country for almost nine months before the Bolsheviks forcibly dissolved the CA in January 1918. During that time, the country lived by the ‘Sovereign's word’ about universal ballot. In the churches, with the blessing of the Most Holy Synod, they sang hosannas to the Provisional Government.

Figuratively speaking, Michael legally ‘conceived’ the ‘embryo’ of the Russian democracy. Alas, as soon as the ‘baby’ was born in January 1918 and cried for not what the Bolsheviks had hoped for, it was strangled. Then, over the subsequent 73 years, all the might of totalitarian state was used to divert attention from this act of ‘state infanticide’, to dim or mock its significance. Please see my article "The contribution of Michael Aleksandrovich to the development of the constitutional system in Russia" («Вклад Михаила Александровича в развитие конституционной системы в России») published in the journal of the State Duma of the Russian Federation "Representative Power".[2]

[1] The Romanov Family Association. http://www.romanovfamily.org/family_ru.html

[2] V.G. Krasnov Вклад Великого Князя Михаила Романова в развитие конституционной системы в России. Representative Power journal, 2010, No. 5, 6 (100, 101). http://pvlast.ru/archive/index.703.php Read online via the following link: https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/home/dokumenty/krasnov-vladislav-georgievic/vklad-mihaila-aleksandrovica-romanova-v-razvitie-konstitucionnoj-sistemy-v-rossiiBibliography on the topic can be found in my mailing "To the faithful supporters of the memory of Michael" on 5 December 2015 on Facebook. This letter is posted for members of this memorial group across the country. https://www.facebook.com/dimovromanov/posts/912586325445837​

Portrait of Michael by Repin

​My early response to Solzhenitsyn's “Reflections”

On several occasions, I have already spoken about Michael at the Solzhenitsyn House. I also responded to Solzhenitsyn's essay “Reflections on the February Revolution”, when Rossiyskaya Gazeta reprinted it, in 2007, on the 90th anniversary of the February Revolution. [1] It was then I wrote an article, which appeared in 2008 in the Moskva (Moscow) journal,[2] edited by Leonid Borodin (Леонид Бородин),[3] a dissident and former prisoner of the "Perm 36 GULAG camp” («Пермь 36»).[4]

My emphasis was on solidarity with Solzhenitsyn in assessing the revolutionary process from 1905 to 1917. However, there was also a disagreement with him over the personality of Michael and his role in the history of Russia. Let me quote my argument:

"The slowness of the tsarist government in the early days of the unrest led to its escalation. The situation was further aggravated by the mutiny of the military units stationed in Petrograd. Within a couple of days of the start of the street lynching it became clear that this was a revolution that could be suppressed only by the army at the risk of unleashing a civil war. Tsar Nicholas could not afford such a risk, by virtue of his convictions or an awareness of his lost authority over the military commanders. Therefore, he abdicated in favor of his younger brother Michael, whose reputation in the army was much stronger. He was clearly counting on decisive military measures on the part of Michael.

However, the Tsar didn’t know his brother very well. Michael was no less conscientious. The inevitable shedding of Russian blood, while an external war was being fought, held him back. (He) knew that autocracy could not be saved. Why did he not declare himself a constitutional monarch, as some Duma members advised? Should he not have tried to save the dynasty? This would have been a realistic option only a few days earlier. However, Nicholas had missed this opportunity for himself, and for both his son and for Michael. As he made his decision on 3 March 1917 (old style), Michael understood that not only the autocracy, but even the constitutional monarchy could not be saved at this point. He saw the only chance for victory over the external enemy in reconciliation with those who yesterday had demanded the abolition of the autocracy, and today the abolition of the monarchy in general."​

[1]"Reflections on the February Revolution" - an article by Alexander Solzhenitsyn on the February Revolution of 1917, first published in the Moscow (Москва) magazine in 1995, and then in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta on 27 February 2007. Originally written in 1980-1983 for the historical epic "The Red Wheel," the volume "March of the Seventeenth."https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Размышления_над_Февральской_революцией#cite_note-_038d33e89dbb3836-3

[3] Leonid Ivanovich Borodin, writer and Soviet dissident. He was born on 14.04.1938 and died on 25.12.2011. Since the mid-1960s, he was a member of the social-Christian circle called the All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of the People (VSSCON). In 1967-1973 and 1982-1987 he was imprisoned in a labor camp. From 1992 he was the editor-in-chief of the Orthodox-patriotic magazine "Moscow". Major works: "Rules of the Game" (1973), "The Third Truth" (1981), "Parting" (1987), "Bozhepoliye" (1993). http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_b/borodin_li.php[4] https://nashural.ru/mesta/permskij-kraj/muzej-politicheskih-repressij-perm-36/

​Having signed the Manifesto on the transfer of power to the Provisional Government so that it could prepare the elections to the CA to resolve the question of the form of governance, Michael "had putthe interests of the country above both those of the dynasty and of himself. He saw the only hope for the Romanovs in the voluntary return of their sovereign power to its source. In 1613 they (the Romanovs) had been elected to the throne by the people's will through the Zemsky Sobor. In 1917 they could regain their power through the expression of the people's will via the Constituent Assembly ... Having received the crown from the hands of the autocrat, Michael did not crown himself, nor he did renounce the throne either”. [5]

Now it is time to focus on my disagreement with Solzhenitsyn’s essay "Reflections on the February Revolution". One must remember that it was written between 1980 and 1983, and based on sources held by the Hoover Institution[6] in the USA. The materials available to him were thus very limited and this was not his fault.[7] This is especially true of information regarding Michael; in fact, most of the material about him was unavailable by 1995, when the essay was first published in Russia, nor even in 2007, when it was reprinted by "Rossiyskaya Gazeta".

Let's start with two important sources unknown to Solzhenitsyn. First of all, the Russian collection of archival documents “From The Throne to Golgotha:The Sorrowful Path of Michael Romanov” («От престола до Голгофы: Скорбный путь Михаила Романова») was published in Perm in 1996 with the participation of Lyudmila Lykova[8] whom I am glad to see at this forum. Many of its documents were not available to Solzhenitsyn when he wrote his essay. Second, a major work of research was published in 1997 by a married couple from Great Britain, Donald and Rosemary Crawford under the title Michael and Natasha: The Life and Love Of Michael II: The Last оf The Romanov Tsars.[9] The book was based on a study of archival materials from St. Petersburg, Moscow, Perm, Austria and Great Britain, where Michael remained in exile from 1912 to 1914. The Crawford book was translated into several European languages, but to Russian only as late as 2008.[10]

[5] Quoted from the collection "The Perm Cross", pages 43 - 44.

[6] The Hoover Institution, founded at Stanford University by the former US President Herbert Hoover had gathered a gigantic library on the wars of the twentieth century and the communist regimes. http://www.voltairenet.org/article128840.html

[7] Solzhenitsyn's discoveries in Russian history while in the USA were eloquently described by his widow Natalia Solzhenitsyna for Rossiyskaya Gazeta on 15 February 2017. "Like many who were born and raised in the USSR at his time, he was also a victim of the Bolshevik mythology. People had it hammered into their heads that the Great October Revolution was carried out by the Great October, and the February bourgeois revolution was only a passing and insignificant event. Those who shook themselves off this idea (Solzhenitsyn, among others) absorbed and returned to the idea of ​​the "liberation", according to which in February Russia "reached the freedom desired by all generations, and all had been rightly rejoicing, gently fluttering this freedom, however, alas, only for only eight months, solely for the reason that the villains, the Bolsheviks, afterwards sank all those freedoms in the blood and turned the country to ruin ... ". https://rg.ru/2017/02/15/rodina-nataliia-solzhenicyna.html

[9] Michael and Natasha: The Life and Love of Michael II, the Last of the Romanov TsarsBy Rosemary Crawford, Donald Crawford. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97410.Michael_and_Natasha

[10] Rosemary and Donald Crawford, Mixail i Natasha, Zakharov Publ., Moscow, 2008http://www.zakharov.ru/knigi/katalog/mihail-i-natalya.html. Rosemary died holding a copy of the belated Russian translation in her hands. Following her will, Donald prepared a new version with an emphasis on the political significance of Michael. Donald Crawford, The Last Tsar: Emperor Michael II Paperback – 25 January 2012//https://www.amazon.com/Last-Tsar-Emperor-Michael-II/dp/1466445009. In the book published through his own publishing house, Crawford thanks the Permian guardians of Michael's memory and quotes Viktor Yevtukhov, the deputy minister of justice in saying that Michael provides a moral foundation for future statesmen. The book was translated into Russian by schoolchildren in the upper grades of seventeen secondary schools in the city of Perm on the initiative of Natalia Kurdina, the director of School No. 11 named after Pushkin.

Reproaches by Solzhenitsyn to Nicholas and Michael

In this essay Solzhenitsyn admitted that "On the night of 1 to 2 March, the uprising in Petrograd meant that Russia was lost". What, then, could be expected from Michael on the morning of 3 March, that is, after all had been lost, as Solzhenitsyn himself admitted? After all, the avalanche of the revolution continued to grow with EVERY HOUR. It was no longer about the succession to the throne but about the threat of civil war. Not just the monarchy, but Russia herself had to be saved, not only from the turmoil of the civil war, but also from the advancing external enemy. And Michael did everything that was in his power, and what his Christian conscience allowed him to do. With his Manifesto of Non-Ascension to the throne, Michael managed, immediately, to stop the escalation of the revolution and to prevent a civil war, at least, until the October Coup.

As soon as the Manifesto came out, all parties, including the Bolsheviks, expressed their support for the idea of ​​a Constituent Assembly, and the shooting in the streets of Petrograd ceased.

Even Nicholas recognized this in his diary of March 16 (March 3rd of the old style): "(Chief of Staff) Alekseev came with the latest news from Rodzianko. It transpires that Misha (informal for Mikhail) has abdicated. His manifesto ends with a four-tail formula for the election of a constituent assembly within 6 months. God knows who put it into his head to sign such silly stuff. In Petrograd, the disturbances have ceased­­–if it would only remain that way."

Nicholas particularly disliked the “silly stuff” that the elections to the CA would be held on the broadest possible basis. However, the promise of "universal, direct, equal and secret ballot" was very much in the spirit of the times. Michael sensed the mood of the educated society in favor of the four-tail formula. If it were up to him, he would certainly not hold elections until the end of the war, because the chaos favors the anarchists and radicals. The cavalry commander knew that one should never change horses in a mid-stream. But he also knew that it was urgent to stop– not crush!–the revolt in the capital. If Michael had not signed this "stuff", he would have deprived his brother of the pleasure of stating: "In Petrograd, the disturbances have ceased” and to hope that “it would only remain that way."

Alas, on the same day that Michael’s Manifesto was published, a newspaper spread from the Left-liberal press immediately set the tone in the country by headlining it the same way as Nicholas’ "abdication". The headline was a lie: for if it was an outright "abdication", as it was strictly conditional. By it, Michael had immediately reduced the Bolsheviks' appetite for revolution and civil war, and thereby increased Russia's chances of ending the war victorious. When in a couple of weeks, the USA entered the war, the outcome of the war in favor of the Entente—and Russia-- was assured.

However, although supporting the idea of ​​elections to the CA in principle, the Bolsheviks did not remove the slogan "To turn the imperialist war into a civil war!" Moreover, the Provisional Government, which Michael authorized to rule the country until the decision of the CA on the form of governance, lost the reins almost immediately.

Firstly, it was unable (or did not try hard enough) to cancel Order No. 1 of the Petrograd Soviet on the control of soldiers over officers, issued two days BEFORE the meeting on Millionnaya St.12, where Michael signed his Manifesto. It was this order that led to the Dual Rule in the country. As the Army disintegrated, the Bolsheviks were encouraged to attempt their coup to unleash a civil war to spur a world revolution. They achieved this goal in the October 1917 coup and then forcibly dissolved the CA in January 1918. The Provisional Government seemed in cahoots with the radicals. In violation of the spirit of the Manifesto, it started its rule by removing pro-monarchist and pro-law and order commanders from their posts, including the inspector-general of the cavalry, Michael. Therefore, all chances of for victorious outcome of the war were lost.

The idea of ​​the CA was so popular that Kerensky did not abolish it. Having proclaimed Russia a republic in September 1917, he relied on the anti-monarchist sentiments of the left-liberal intellectuals who were fomenting popular discontent. However, Kerensky billed it as only a temporary measure until the CA elections.

The Bolsheviks, too, even after the seizure of power in October, did not dare to stop the elections to the CA as they still believed in the illusion of their popularity at the voting booths. However, after finding, in January 1918, that they had suffered a crushing defeat, they decided to disperse the CA. When the Petrograd populace came out in protest, the Bolshevik squads dispersed the demonstrators by fire. Thus, in the hope for a world revolution, Lenin got the long-awaited pretext to unleash a civil war in Russia.

Meanwhile, Solzhenitsyn arbitrarily links the two brothers in the one harness of incompetence, indecisiveness and weakness. Having reproached Nicholas over his inability to govern either the country or the army, Solzhenitsyn adds that Michael showed "the same emotional weakness and the same desire to FREE himself ... to be with his wife whilst between his two official posts." This is unfair to Michael. Since at the time of his writing many sources were unavailable to Solzhenitsyn, or anyone, he had to rely more on intuition and set stereotypes than facts.

This is especially true of the now available sources. In 2006, I was able to study the diaries and correspondence of Michael at the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF)[1] for several days. I left with a very favorable impression of him as a person, commander and statesman.

I say this with all respect to Solzhenitsyn, not only as a writer, but also as a historian. He made a bold and broad attempt to recreate the tragedy of Russia in the era of revolution, external war and civil war in his "Red Wheel" series at a time when the majority of Soviet historians were blinkered by Marxism-Leninism, limited by censorship and by fear.

His portrayal of Pyotr Stolypin[2] who was the Prime Minister of Russia and Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire from 1906 to 1911 was admirable and certainly more realistic than the official Soviet version. Solzhenitsyn retroactively introduced a whole chapter on Stolypin in "August 1914”. In a challenge to the official Soviet dismissal of Stolypin as a “reactionary” non-entity, Solzhenitsyn portrayed him as a statesman and a hero who aspired - despite constant risk to his life - to bring about peace both within the country and with its neighbors. Solzhenitsyn realized that the revolutions of 1917 could not be understood without an analysis of the 1905 revolution. And he praised Stolypin's heroic attempt to lead the country out of revolutionary fever. No wonder the Bolsheviks hated him so much. In the United States, Solzhenitsyn could rely on the archives of the Hoover Institution, inaccessible at the time from the USSR. Having re-created a more realistic image of Stolypin, Solzhenitsyn showed that there was a viable alternative evolutionary path for Russia, more thoughtful and humane, with the stress on free enterprise and fairness within the country and peace-seeking attitude in foreign affairs.

However, Solzhenitsyn’s portrayal of Michael seems contradictory and biased. On the one hand, he writes: "If it is necessary to choose a fateful night in Russian history, if there was one that sealed the whole future of the country in just a few dark hours, conflating several revolutions at once, it was the night from the 1st to 2nd of March 1917."

But then he contradicts himself: "The monarchy had ended with the abdication of Michael. It was more than his own abdication: he blocked all other possible successors to the throne, as he transferred the power to an amorphous oligarchy. His abdication turned the change of monarch into a revolution ...” If the fate of the country was sealed on the night of the 1st to 2nd of March, how can one believe that "The monarchy ended with the abdication of Michael "on the 3rd March?

[1] GARF http://statearchive.ru/index.html

[2] Pyotr Stolypin, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Stolypin

Solzhenitsyn on the “emotional weakness” of Michael​It gets worse: "In the abdication of Michael, we can observe a mirroring of the emotional weakness (of Nicholas) and the same desire to FREE himself. Even the actions of the brothers are similar: almost in the same period for which Nicholas broke his journey in order to see his wife, Michael similarly went (from Gatchina) to Petrograd ... Just like Nicholas in Pskov, Michael lost his freedom in that Petrograd apartment. Being trapped in the same way, he was forced to abdicate, partly, simply because he chose to see the smart wife he so adored, as soon as possible".

These attacks are not based on historiography. Solzhenitsyn accuses Michael for petty selfishness in the fateful hour for Russia, implying his lack of patriotism. I think this is unacceptable for a historian. My admiration for the writer forces me to disagree with him on this issue.

There is no doubt that the lion's share of responsibility for the crisis situation in the country must be borne by the ruling tsar. Only a bold political maneuver could have led the way out of the crisis. Nicholas's abdication was such an attempt, but it was fatally late. Still, unlike the monarchists in Sologubovka, I believe that Nicholas deserves credit for obeying his Christian conscience: suppressing personal vanity and resentment, he chose a humiliating abdication. Alas, his abdication, first in favor of his sick son Alexei, and then his brother Michael, came TOO LATE, by at least a couple of days, and could not stop the revolution that threatened to turn into a civil war.

The task of stopping the roll-out of the revolution unexpectedly fell to Michael. And he did what he could. He entrusted the fate of the monarchy to the "will of our great people". He empowered the Russian people to collectively determine the form of governance by electing their representatives to the Constituent assembly by nation-wide universal, direct, equal and secret ballot. He also authorized the Provisional Government to defend the country and run its domestic affairs on the condition that it would prepare the electoral law and hold the election.

​Vladimir Khrustalyov

Meanwhile, Vladimir Khrustalyov, the chief history expert at the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF), published in 2008 his book "Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich," [1] based on archival materials. Khrustalev’s book portrays Michael in much more flattering terms.

"By the will of circumstances and chance, Michael II was technically the last emperor on the Russian throne, even though the period of his reign was less than a full day­­-from the 2nd to 3rd of March 1917," writes Khrustalev. "Even after the ‘abdication’ from ‘the supreme authority’ he had a good chance to acquire it’(p. 5), says Khrustalev in a clear allusion that, in case of the victorious outcome of war, the Constituent Assembly may have elected Michael as a constitutional monarch (p. 5).

As for Michael's personality, Khrustalyov provides several testimonies in another book, of which he was the compiler and editor, "Diary and correspondence of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich. 1915-1918.” [2] It was published in Russian in 2012 (Solzhenitsyn died in 2008). Here is the opinion of Colonel A.A. Mordvinov, who was adjutant (aide-de-camp) to Michael from 1904 to 1912 and could, better than anyone else, observe the behavior of his boss.

"Tall, slender, strong, with perfect features, with amazingly beautiful, radiant, slightly pensive, big eyes, he immediately drew attention. In his shy, kind smile, his simplicity of approach and a youthful sincerity you could sense throughout his straightforwardness… he involuntarily drew to him all those with whom he had contact. He was one of the few people of our time who managed… to keep all the chaste cleanliness of his body and thoughts right into maturity ... "(p. 19).

"In life, because of some inner need, he followed unconsciously the commandment- Be like the children! Despite whatever trials befell him later, he would probably have remained that way right into old age. "

"He really did not like (mainly out of politeness) to promote his own opinion (which he always had) and because of this… was shy to confront others. But in those matters that he deemed -correctly or not–part of his moral duty, he showed his usual persistence, which amazed me "(p. 21).

Another associate of the Grand Duke, Lieutenant-General A.A. Mosolov, wrote that Michael "was distinguished by exceptional kindness and trustfulness ... Brave and physically strong, the Grand Duke showed himself as a capable commander." According to Mosolov, Count Sergei Witte (1843-1915)[3], a Prime Minister who also had taught the Romanov brothers, "praised the ability of Michael to whom he gave lessons on the political economy. He emphasized his truthfulness and frankness ... “As to Michael’s elder brother, Witte gave him good marks for upbringing, but "Nicholas II did not shine at mental abilities "(p. 19).

The physical and moral stress under conditions of war, when one faces the questions of life and death hourly, makes a person look at the world in a new way. That's what particularly attracted my attention when, in February 2007, I spent several days working in the State Archive Library. I had ordered a folder from the archives of Michael's correspondence with his wife Natalia. In his long letter from the front-line, dated 22-23 January 1915, Michael writes: "I am grateful to fate that as a result of now being in not (quite) my normal living conditions, I have seen real life and the real attitude toward us from the people ... War and all this terrific horror, which it entails, involuntarily brings every sensible person to the most sad thoughts ... ".

Michael explains: "I feel a great anger at people in general, but mainly directed at those who stand at the top to allow all this horror to happen"(p.171).

Reading about Michael's anger toward the highest level of the autocratic power, to which he himself belonged, one may well remember Captain Solzhenitsyn's letters to his front-line friend Nikolai Vitkevich, in which, according to Wikipedia, he spoke bluntly about the leadership of ‘Pakhan’ (a slang for Father as Stalin expected people to call him), "compared the Stalinist rule with serfdom and spoke of the need to form after the war an "organization" to restore the so-called "Leninist" norms." For harboring such thoughts, still within the framework of the official ideology of "Leninism”, Solzhenitsyn was arrested on the front line to begin his descent to the hell of GULAG.

Michael continued to tell Natasha of his war-time insight: "If the issue of war were decided solely by the people, then I would not so vehemently rebel against this great disaster, but the fact is that the question of whether there is a war or not is always decided by the government, and in general, no one ever asks for an opinion of the people, as to what they would like to do".

Since the fortunes of the war soon turned against Russia, Natasha also had to make her own contribution to the home-front effort. She turned their palace in Petrograd into a medical infirmary. Michael continues: "I am even ashamed before the people, that is, in front of the soldiers and officers; in particular, I feel it when visiting hospitals, where one sees so much suffering - and you start to realize that you are complicit in the war, that, although you stand so high, you could not warn and protect your country from such a disaster."

Yes, Michael stood ‘high’, but not so high as to be able to influence the question of war and peace. But when the war began, he did not sit it out abroad, where he had been exiled by the will of his autocrat brother because of his morganatic marriage to Natalia. Nor did he seek any comfortable diplomatic assignment, such as overseeing the food or weapons supplies to Russia from abroad. No, as a man trained in military leadership and combat, he asked his brother to forgive his “sin” of morganatic marriage and let him serve the fatherland on the front line. And that’s what the Tsar did: he forgave Michael by giving him a very unusual and extremely challenging order to command the new cavalry division that was just being formed from volunteers of war-like Muslim tribes of Northern Caucasus.

Michael accomplished his mission with flying colors. He proved to be a skillful commander. His division went down to history under its informal name as “Wild Division” (Dikaya diviziya, in Russian). This name originally implied the lack of discipline among its disparate horsemen from different tribes. After all, the division consisted of six regiments of different tribes of North Caucasus, such as the Kabardinians, Chechens, and Ingush each speaking its own language, but united by Islam and tribal customs. Each man was a skillful and brave fighter, but coordination with other units was weak. Gradually, Michael was able to train them to modern methods of warfare and observe discipline.

As the result, the Wild Division became one of the best fighting units of WWI. Michael was soon promoted to command a cavalry corps and then, before his abdication on March 3, 1917, he was elevated to Inspector General, overseeing all cavalry formations of the Imperial Army. Moreover, he proved himself a brave warrior whom his Muslim subordinates especially admired for his horse-riding skills. He earned the St. George’s cross for personal bravery under fire. What makes this Russian general of the First World War cavalry particularly close to Solzhenitsyn, the artillery captain of World War II, is his determination to carry out his military duty to his homeland, but at the same time to preserve his conscience, common sense and care for his subordinates. The “Wild Division” remained loyal to the throne longer than many predominantly ethnic Russian troops that fell to the Bolshevik propaganda.

Khrustalyov also cites the book by Robert Massie "Nicholas and Alexandra"[1]: "With Nicholas and Alexis both removed, Michael was now the Tsar. There is an old Russian legend that when Tsar Michael II sits on the throne, Russia will win her eternal goal, Constantinople… If Michael had taken the throne and the allies had won the war, the ancient legend might at last have been fulfilled".

Something new from Natalia Chernyshova-Melnik​And here is a novelty. Natalia Chernyshova-Melnik, a knowledgeable and persistent explorer of Michael's memory, who took part in various forums in Perm and St. Petersburg, has just published her second book dedicated to Michael. The book is called in Russian "The Last Emperor:The Life and Love of Mikhail Romanov". I have not been able to read it, but its title and the description from the publisher speak for themselves: "de jure the last Russian emperor… heput his faith in the Constituent Assembly and the Russian people. He had the immense moral strength of the peacekeeper and the first citizen of free Russia, who called upon his compatriots to fulfill their public duty by participating in democratic elections. It is not his fault that it did not come to pass ...»[1]

While creating the portrait of Michael in “Reflections”, Solzhenitsyn does not even mention his outstanding, spectacular and unique role as a brave commander of the legendary Wild Division. And-what is especially importantly for a multi-ethnic Russia-Michael proved himself a virtuoso communicator with fellow Muslims, as well as the people of other faiths and different cultures. Solzhenitsyn, when he dismissed Michael, simply could not have known of the latest research, be it Khrustalyov's books or Oleg Opryshko's “The Caucasian Equestrian Division” («Кавказская конная дивизия»), which was released in 2007[1]

Here is what a newspaper reporter wrote about Michael, when he visited the Wild Division in 1915 on the front line:

"An open gaze in his eyes is a property of a high and crystal-pure nature. Studying his gaze, one begins to understand the charm through which Grand Duke Michael inspires all those who have, at least once, seen him close-up. What is the secret of such powerful charm? The beauty of his noble soul shines though in everything, in every phrase, in every glance, in each gesture. This individual is sincerity itself personified; it is so harmoniously interwoven with his regal simplicity. (He) is not only a beloved commander who has covered both himself and his division with glory, but also a brave soldier who knows no fear "(p. 23)[2]

Not only military valor and friendliness with the Muslims distinguished the commander. He is also a devout Christian: "The Grand Duke appeals because of his modest and simple love-he is fully immersed in a fascinating simplicity-a love for Russia and everything Russian... And in his devotion the Grand Duke is reminiscent of the ancient Vasnetsov’s [3] Moscow, which, by the way, is always so close to the heart of His Majesty. (He) does not miss a single liturgy. The church itself harmonizes so closely with his appearance. The parishioners are a crowd of our gray heroes. In front of them stands a tall, slender and agile Grand Duke, who is completely immersed in prayer "(pp. 23-24).

[3] Viktor Vasnetsov (1848 –1926) was a Russian artist who specialized in mythological and historical subjects. He is considered the co-founder of Russian folklorist and romantic nationalistic painting (see also neo-romanticism), and a key figure in the Russian revivalist movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Vasnetsov​

"Dzhigit Mikhailo", as the mountaineers affectionately called him, among his comrades-in-arms (“Dzhigit” is a common appellation of a brave man in the Caucasus)

The division consisted of six regiments of the peoples from the North Caucasus: Kabardians, Circassians, Ingush, Chechens, Dagestanis and Tatars. All served voluntarily, because they were not subject to military service. "These highlanders, who highly value personal courage, with some purely Muslim fanaticism, idolize their leader. Between themselves they call the Grand Duke "Our Mikhailo" and write enthusiastic letters about him to their distant mountain villages".

A Cossack officer of the Wild Division, Sergei Kurnakov Сергей Курнаков[4], recalls his acquaintance with Mikhail: "I've never had to meet with grand dukes before. This one was absolutely charming. His clear blue eyes radiated confidence. His posture was straight and slender, but not arrogant and he had the body of a Roman gladiator". Kurnakov concludes: "What an honor it would be to give one’s life for such a person. NowondertheCaucasiansadorehim".

[4] According to Wikipedia in English, Kurnakov was from the Circassians. After the revolution, he emigrated to the United States, became a communist and an agent for Soviet intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Nikolaevich_Kurnakov http://ru.knowledgr.com/01583369/СергейНиколаевичКурнаков ​​

Monument to the soldiers of the Ingush Regiment of the Wild Division in Nazran

An American reporter Stanley Washburn[5] saw the Tsar's brother in 1915, at the front-line. As Washburn points out, the Grand Duke was in uniform, but without any flashy insignia, simply a St. George’s cross on his chest. He wrote: "It's hard to imagine a more simple and democratic person". "(Living) very simply in a dirty village at the leading edge of the Russian front" (as a trench warrior), Michael "radiated the same unflagging optimism that made the Russian army stand out everywhere".

Michael's talents as a general were highly praised by others outstanding commanders, such as generals Alexey Brusilov[6], Petr Krasnov[7] and the commander of the Cavalry Corps, which included the Wild Division, General Huseyn Khan Nakhchivanski[8]. (He too who was shot by the Bolsheviks in 1919).

The French Ambassador Maurice PaleologМорис Палеолог[9]wrote in his diary the impression of one of the participants in the meeting at Millionnaya: "During all these long and difficult disputes, the Grand Duke did not, for a moment, lose his calm and his dignity ... At this historical moment his patriotism, nobility and self-sacrifice were moving to behold".

Taking the Manifesto from Michael's hands, Kerensky exclaimed: "You have generously entrusted us with the vessel of your power. I swear to you that we will pass it to the Constituent Assembly without shedding a single drop from it".

It was not Michael's fault that neither Kerensky nor the Provisional Government kept their oaths. Instead, the handed over that "vessel of power" to the Bolsheviks for them to abuse.

"Can you point out at least one strong group of officials or minds working for the state, on which you can rely?" Michael asked his lawyer N.N. Ivanov before the abdication of Nicholas. And he answered that question himself: "I do not see any. Onlybayonets all around. Bayonetsand sabres.”

Neither was it Michael's fault that there was not a single social force in the country that was looking for a peaceful, non-violent way to overcome the Troubles. Ivanov recalls a conversation with him after his abdication, when, the innuendo might have spread that Michael failed to fulfill the Tsar's trust and assume the crown because he did not have the guts to fight. "Well, will you shake my hand then?" Michael asked. And then he answered himself: "I did the right thing. I'm happy that I'm a private person. I refused, so that there was no reason to shed blood".

While in the USA, Kournakov penned down his experience in the Wild Division in a book titled “Savage Squadrons”.​[5] Washburn, Stanley, 1878-1950. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Washburn%2C%20Stanley%2C%201878-1950

[6] General Alexey Brusilov, (born Aug. 31 [Aug. 19, Old Style], 1853, Tiflis, Russia—died March 17, 1926, Moscow), Russian general distinguished for the “Brusilov breakthrough” on the Eastern Front against Austria-Hungary (June–August 1916), which aided Russia’s Western allies at a crucial time during World War I.

[7] Pyotr Krasnov (1869, St. Petersburg – 16 January 1947, Moscow) – A Major-General of the Russian Imperial Army, ataman of the Don Army and a novelist. A prominent leader of the White movement. during the WWII he served as chief of the Cossack Forces of Nazi Germany. In violation of the Yalta agreements, together with thousands of Cossacks, he was forcibly handed over to Soviet authorities by the British and executed. See the book of Nikolai Tolstoy, Victims of YaltaSee also Julius Epstein, Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present. Hardcover – June 1, 1973https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Keelhaul-Forced-Repatriation-Present/dp/0815964072

[8] Huseyn Khan Nakhchivanski (1863 – January 1919 in St. Petersburg), was a Russian Cavalry General of Azerbaijani origin. He was the only Muslim to serve as General-Adjutant of the H. I. M. Retinue. He was Grand Duke Michael’s superior.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huseyn_Khan_Nakhchivanski.

[9] Maurice Paléologue (1859 –1944) was a French diplomat, historian, and essayist. He played a major role in the French entry into the First World War, when he was the French ambassador to Russia and supported the Russian mobilization against Germany that led to world war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Pal%C3%A9ologue​

So, let's not blame Michael for a "lack of will," "political blindness," or "naivety." Let's not ridicule his Manifesto, as if dictated by the "Jewish Masons" and agents of either Germany or England. Michael carefully read the text compiled by the lawyers, then made minor corrections and made, perhaps, the most crucial addition: that he acted by ‘invoking the blessing of God’ upon the Russian people and himself. He acted in perfect harmony with his Christian conscience. He did not put the Manifesto to a vote but signed it with his name AUTOCRATICALLY. It was a heroic attempt to lead Russia out of TROUBLES, without compromising common sense, his Christian conscience, or the duties of the monarch.

Michael walked in the footsteps of his heavenly patron Saint Michael of Tver(СвятойблаговерныйкнязьМихаилТверской)[1] who had sacrificed himself, surrendering to the mercy of Khan of the Golden Horde in order to avoid an internecine war with the Prince of Moscow Yuri Danilovich (ЮрийДанилович).[2] Ever since 12 June 2007, the people of Perm have gone annually in procession to the chapel of Michael of Tver, in whose honor Michael was baptized, to commemorate the victimhood of him and his secretary Johnson on June 12, 1918.

​[10] Holy Prince Michael of Tver was born in 1272 after the death of his father, Grand Duke Yaroslav Yaroslavich, brother of Alexander Nevsky. On the death of Grand Duke Andrei Alexandrovich (+ 1305), Michael, by right of the elder, had a claim to the Grand Duke's throne in the Mongol Golden Horde, but the Moscow prince Yury Danilovich did not obey him as he himself wanted the Grand Duke's title. Often visiting the Golden Horde to see the new Khan Uzbek (who had just converted to Islam and was known for his cruelty and fanaticism), Yuri pleased the Khan by marreing his sister Konchaki and became a grand prince. However he did not settle down but began a new internecine war with Tver. Yuri’s army included Tatar troops sent by the Khan Uzbek. However, on 22 December 1317 the Tver people, led by Prince Michael, defeated Yuri. Among the prisoners was Tatar commander, whom Michail set free. Yuri slandered Michael in front of Khan, accusing him of poisoning Konchaki. Khan threatened to ruin the princely patrimony of Michael if he did not come to the Horde to answer the accusation. Not wishing to shed the blood of Russian soldiers in an unequal battle with Khan, saint Michael humbly went to the Horde, realizing that, by doing so, he risked death. https://days.pravoslavie.ru/Life/life2579.htm

Consecrating the Penitential cross erected in the memory of Michael in Perm after the Cross-Bearing Procession

​As far as the world is concerned, Miсhael's attempt failed. It was not possible to prevent Russia's defeat in World War I, or to keep it from civil war. However, his effort has led to his ascent to Golgotha ​​of the Perm’s Black Cross. With him, Russia too has ascended the Cross of 2oth century Calvary.

Crawford on Michael

Speaking at a conference in Perm on 12-13 June 2008, Donald Crawford, who died in 2017, said: "We will never be able fully to understand what was lost along with his tragic life. But what we do know about him deserves to be remembered forever and to be held in high honour. All peoples need an integral historical memory. If there is one person who could serve as a bridge across the abyss separating tsarist Russia from New Russia, this would undoubtedly be Michael, the man with the greatest integrity and most consistent personality amongst the last Romanovs, the only one who still deserves everyone's attention and respect.” [1]

Cover of the last book written by Donald Crawford "The Last Tsar", translated into Russian by a team of pupils from senior classes at schools in Perm

​The Life of St. Michael Alexandrovich?

The Englishman, Crawford, is echoed by another Russian author. "We remember that, Michael, who lived in exile in Perm at one time, worried the Bolshevik leaders undoubtedly more than did Nicholas. He was a real emperor, with real authority among the troops. That’s why Michael II had to be destroyed as soon as possible." So writes hegumen Mitrofan Badanin, now elevated to the Bishop of Umba and the North Sea (ЕпископУмбскийиСевероморский)[1] in his book "The Icon of the Grand Duke" («Икона Великого Князя»)[2]

He tells of the story of how the icon of the Kazan Mother of God was presented to Michael in memory of the miraculous rescue of the family of Emperor Alexander III from the wreckage of the imperial train at Borki station in 1888[1]. At a forum in Michael's memory that took place at his former palace on Angliyskaya Naberezhnaya 54 (‘English Enbankment’) in St. Petersburg in May 2010, the hegumen told how his grandfather had saved this icon from the plundering of the palace during the revolution. At great risk to his life, his grandfather had preserved it through the harshest years of Soviet persecution. Two years later, in 2012, at a forum in Murmansk, hegumen Mitrofan presented the participants with a book that reads as the life of a saint. After all, Michael was already canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) back in 1981.

[1] The crash of the Imperial train occurred on 17 (29) October 1888 near the Borki station. Despite there being numerous victims and heavy damage to the rolling stock, including the royal carriage, the Emperor Alexander III himself and his family members were not harmed. The saving of the imperial family in the church tradition was interpreted as miraculous. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Крушение_императорского_поезда

Hegumen Mitrofan Badanin and Archpriest Gennady Belovolov at the Church on-the-Blood in St. Petersburg on the birthday of Nicholas on 19 May 2010. The names of two brothers, Nicholas and Michael, were invoked together as the victims for the first time after their murder

​"It seems that if Michael had the opportunity to leave us with his farewell instructions," writes the Hegumen on p. 150, "he would have repeated the words of his crowned brother and martyr, Nicholas, as recorded by Grand Duchess Olga: ‘Father asked us to convey to all those who remained loyal to Him, and to those whom they may have influence on, to ask that they do not take revenge for Him, because He forgave all and prayed for all, and asked that they neither take revenge for themselves, and that they remember that doing so would make the evil that is now in the world even stronger, and that evil will not conquer evil, only love can do so ... "

Hegumen Mitrofan on 19 May 2010 conducting the litiya in front of the building at 12 Millionnaya, where Michael signed the Manifesto

​In a recent interview, Bishop Mitrofan confirmed that he wanted "to uphold the spiritual essence of Michael as one of the best representatives of the, alas now disappeared, real Russia". He expressed his readiness to seek the canonization of Michael and "to study the available documents” for this purpose. Unfortunately, "Until recently, we had such an opportunity, but now, as we know, the archives have been closed for a hundred years". Therefore, "it is now difficult to resume the work of glorification of the martyrs".[1]

[1] "The Vicious Circle of the Bishop of the North Sea Mitrofan”. MARIA SENCHUKOVA, EPISKOP MITROPHAN BADANIN | 30 JULY 2017 http://www.pravmir.ru/zamknutyj-krug-episkopa-severomorskogo-mitrofana/

Solzhenitsyn, “Two hundred years together”

It is a pity that, on the centenary of the revolution, the nation-wide magazine “Rodina” distributed Solzhenitsyn's “Reflections” in a special issue without expressing any reservations over the article, as if, after 1983, when the essay was written in the USA, neither the archives nor the work of historians had brought anything new to our understanding of the revolution.[1]

Even Solzhenitsyn had found it necessary to turn to a most important factor of revolutionary events, which he had completely missed in “Reflections” in 1983: the role of Jews in the revolutionary events of 1917. In 2002, the publishing house of the Solzhenitsyn House "Russkiy Put’" published his two-volume work "Two hundred years together" «Двести лет вместе»[2] dedicated to Russian-Jewish relations after the Jewish population became a part of the Russian Empire under Catherine II. This work may well be the final and deepest penetration by the writer into the tragic history of Russia.

It is out of place to talk here about all aspects of the book. But it certainly contains the author’s much deeper insight into the February and October revolutions than in “Reflections”. As for 1917, Solzhenitsyn's attention is focused on the role of Jews in the leadership of the Bolsheviks.

I was glad that Solzhenitsyn turned to this subject - no matter how painful and controversial it may be – for, without such understanding, nothing can be understood either of what happened in Russia 100 years ago, or of what is HAPPENING in the WORLD NOW. I have already addressed this topic in my book«Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth», published just BEFORE the collapse of the USSR.[3] I sent a copy to Solzhenitsyn to his house in Cavendish, Vermont. I don’t know whether he read it, but, if he did, he couldn’t but have noticed that I paid much attention to the participation of the Jews in the revolutionary events. Alas, the Russian translation Новая Россия: от коммунизма к национальному возрождению appeared after the writer's death.[4]

I was convinced then, as I am now, that emancipation of the Russian people from totalitarian Soviet ideology cannot be successful without understanding the role of the Jews in the 1917 revolution. Therefore, I dedicated Chapter 4, Russia and the Revolution, Chapter 5, Russophobia and Judeophobia, as well as the Conclusion to this topic.

Chapter 4 begins with a discussion of the debate that took place in the Literaturnaya Gazeta in 1989 between Vadim Kozhinov[5] and Benedikt Sarnov[6] on the topic "Who is to blame: Jews or Russians?" Alas, both Soviet debaters, however much they differed in their opinions, seemed to lose the strength of their voice, as soon as they approach the "sacred cow" of communism - Lenin. That is, their debating zest failed when faced with Lenin. Not to mention Karl Marx, who then stood at the head of the "holy trinity" of unquestionable ideological idols.

Among my sources was the collection "Russia and the Jews" («Россия и евреи»), which Solzhenitsyn quotes abundantly in the book "Two hundred years together", from the same 1978 YMCA Press edition that I used. This collection was not available in the USSR then and is still very little known now.[7]

I also included a few foreign authors who did not make into Solzhenitsyn's book. Among them is British rabbi Chaim Bermant,[8] who in the book “The Jews” [9] rejects the popular thesis that the Jews allegedly revolt solely because they are oppressed.

An American John Murray Cuddihy [10] explained the propensity of East European Jews for radicalism as being due to their feelings of inferiority in comparison to the more successfully assimilated Jews of Western Europe and the United States. Their interest in the class struggle and world revolution was dictated by the desire to rapidly become more Western than the “weak-willed” West, mired in the comforts of life.

I’ve also included one American Communist, albeit one who was already disillusioned - David Horowitz (Дэвид Горовиц).[11] His participation in the “New Left” (НовыеЛевые)[12] movement during the Vietnam War he explained in his book "Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties" (Поколение разрушителей: размышления в ретроспективе)[13] by his upbringing. His parents, says Horowitz, were members of the US Communist Party, and even Stalinists. As such they voluntarily condemned themselves to the ghettos of self-isolation. They lived like monks in an ideological cocoon in the hope for a communist revolution in the US. Now Horowitz is an inveterate conservative and Zionist.[14]

In my 1991 book “Russia Beyond Communism” I also focused on the “Ideocidal ideology of Marx.” The cult of Karl Marx in the West, I argued, was chiefly responsible for both the ‘Marxophilia and Russophobia’ among many American sovietologists, not to mention the students of the ‘Destructive Generation’. These themes escaped the attention of the “fighters” against “Stalinism”, “Khrushchev's voluntarism”, “Brezhnev’s stagnation” and “deviations from Leninism.” “The West, where the idea of ​​a free market sprang up and flourished,” I wrote at the end of 1990, “did much more to ensure the freedom of movement of goods than for the free movement of ideas. And the most important reason was the reluctance to contain the spread (across the globe) of the virus of that expressly WESTERN (Marxist) idea that captured the intellectual monopoly over the minds of almost a third of humanity (p. 331.) ”

Solzhenitsyn quotes abundantly the authors of the collection “Russia and the Jews”, to which I have already referred. The primary author of the collection, I.M. Bikerman, admits that “The too-conspicuous participation of Jews in the Bolshevik satanism offends the eyes of Russian people and the eyes of the whole world”.[15]

He also quots D.S. Pasmanyk: “One can rightfully assert, as many Russian patriots do, as do even very progressive people, that Russia is now in agony under the rule of Jewish dictatorship and Jewish terror.”

Solzhenitsyn, summarizing the Jewish collection, eschews to ascribe to the Jews exorbitant guilt or merit: “No, the Jews were not the main driving force of the October coup. Moreover, it was not at all necessary for the Russian Jewry, who received freedom in February. But, when the (Bolshevik) coup had already taken place, the active young secularized Jewry easily and quickly jumped from one horse to another - and with no less confidence continued galloping with the same frenzy, but now in the Bolshevik race” (Vol 2, p. 100).

[1] Natalia Solzhenitsyna recalls: How "Reflections on the February Revolution appeared"https://rg.ru/2017/02/16/kak-poiavilis-razmyshleniia-nad-fevralskoj-revoliuciej-solzhenicyna.html

[5] Vadim Kozhinov (Вадим Кожинов) (1930-2001) — a prominent Soviet literary scholar who attacked Soviet scholarship from the position of the need for Russian national revival. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кожинов,_Вадим_ВалериановичSee his books at https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/vadim-kozhinov/1940736/

[6] Benedikt Sarnov (1927 – 2014) was a Moscow literary critic, historian of Soviet literature, and writer. In 1990s he became Secretary of the Moscow Writers' Union, a part of Union of Russian Writers. He has published over twenty books, hundreds of articles and reviews, and continued to be active in the post-Soviet period. His recent books were about relationships of Stalin and Soviet writers/ He died in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedikt_Sarnov

[7] “Russia and the Jews” Collection of articles Россия и евреи: Сб. статей. М.: Znatnov; third edition, amended in 2007 г.http://www.libex.ru/detail/book831396.html Annotation: In the history of Russian-Jewish relations, there is nothing like this collection "Russia and the Jews". In 1923, the authors formed the "Domestic Association of Russian Jews Abroad" and published an appeal “To the Jews of All Countries!” included in a book published in Berlin in 1924. All authors are Jewish intellectuals, ardent opponents of Bolshevism. As patriots of Russia, they recognize the Jewish guilt for bloody violence. The collection had long been quoted, but not easily available until it was reprinted by Parisian publishing house YMCA Press in in 1978. The preface to the 2007 edition was written by the Russian nationalist Alexander Sevastyanov. The afterword belongs to the leading Israeli and Russian thinker of the left orientation, Israel Shamir.[8] Chaim Bermant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Bermant

[9] Bermant’s book at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4002843-the-jews

Solzhenitsyn did not fail to point out another parallel event that also turned 100 years old in November 2017, the Balfour Declaration, which greatly affected the mood of Russian Jewry at that time. It was largely ignored by Soviet scholars. But it has not lost its relevance even now.

“... The October Revolution coincided precisely with the Declaration of Balfour, the first real step towards the creation of an independent Jewish state. And what happened? Part of the Jewish generation went the way of Herzl and Jabotinsky. The other part ... could not resist the temptation and enrolled in the Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin gang. (This is exactly what Churchill was afraid of.) Herzl's way seemed at the time too extreme and almost unreal. The path of Trotsky and Bagritsky allowed the Jews to rapidly straighten up, immediately becoming not just an equal nation in Russia - but a privileged one.”[1]

My old American friend Allan Brownfeld, a Jew by religion, but a convinced anti-Zionist and America patriot, wrote a well-documented analytical article on the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, which I hurried to translate into Russian.[2] According to Brownfeld, most of the British Jews, including the only Jew in the Balfour Ministry, did not support the Declaration. In fact, it was conceived as a British colonialist project proposed to Rothschild in the hope of recruiting Zionist zealots for the expansion of the Empire. Even now, Brownfeld writes, despite the enormous influence the Israeli lobby, most American Jews are skeptical about Israel. After all, Israel recognizes only Orthodox Judaism, whereas in the US most Jews belong to Reform or Conservative branches of Judaism.

But do American Jews have anything to do with the centenary of the February and October revolutions? It turns out they do. At least, so writes Charles Bausman, the American founder of the pro-Russian site “Russia Insider.” (https://russia-insider.com/ru) In his sensational article, Bausman calls on journalists to drop the taboo on the Jewish issue and avoid using euphemisms such as “Russophobic media”, “Wall Street bosses” and “neocon leaders”; simply call them Jews. These euphemisms hide the fact that the anti-Russian and anti-Putin campaign in the US is led mainly by Jews, alleges Bausman.

The article seemed so bold and timely that I immediately translated it into Russian and posted on the website of Perevodika.ru[1], then on RAGA in both languages (RAGA на обоих языках)[2].

According to Bausman, it was this taboo in the media of tsarist Russia on the eve of the revolution that led to a confusion in the minds and in the country. The taboo was reinforced with the stigma of “anti-Semite” against anyone who dared to identify the Jews in the leadership of the Bolsheviks, terrorists and left-wing extremists. This TABOO became all-powerful in the Soviet era, even though, since the Suez crisis in 1956, the condemnation of Zionists had become standard in Soviet propaganda. Bausman calls on Americans to avoid the bitter experience of Russia and call things by their proper names, that is, name Jews as Jews. Otherwise, one will not be able to understand either the geopolitics or the history of Russia, warns Bausman.

This warning is especially relevant now, Bausman writes, because USA media giants, led by Jews, are conducting a systematic campaign against Russia and President Putin, so harsh and all-encompassing that the world is now much closer to self-destruction than it ever was at the time of the Cold War. It's not just about Russia and the US, but also about the survival of mankind. It needs to be stressed that Bausman does not censure all Jews, but only the clique that seized the information, financial and university elite of the United States.

Bausman was not the first American to criticize the influence of Jews on US policy. In 2008, the book written by two prominent American professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” was subjected to such damnation by pro-Israeli journalists in the United States that its first run, in the form of an article, was in England. [3] Unfortunately, it has not yet been translated into Russian.[4]

Back in 1997, Albert S. Lindemann,[5] professor at the University of Santa Barbara, published a book, “Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews”, the main thesis of which is that anti-Semitism does not exist by itself, and is sometimes a response to the behavior of certain groups within the Jewish population. [6] It too was ostracized in the US and was not translated into Russian.

Actually, there are quite a few alternative websites that resist the aggressive unipolar, anti-Russian and pro-Israeli policies of the United States. Here are a few: Veterans Today, founded by former US military and intelligence veterans, disaffected with the pro-Israel and anti-Russian orientation in US policy; Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation (FGF), a conservative Catholic organization dedicated to strengthening the basic Christian values ​​of Western civilization; Institute for Historical Review, and Center for Research on Globalization, operating in Canada in several languages. I have been a contributor to the first two.

The Jews themselves offer sharp criticism, not only of Zionism and Jewish bankers, but also of Jewish influence in general. One of the boldest books against the distortion of the fate of Jews in the Second World War was written by political scientist Norman Finkelstein. The title of the book, translated into Russian, speaks for itself “Holocaust industry: reflections on the exploitation of Jewish suffering” (ИндустрияХолокоста: размышлениянатемуэксплуатацииеврейскихстраданий).[7]

Finkelstein argues that the issue of the Holocaust is being abused by some Jewish organizations to extract money and other material benefits, as well as to justify the racist ideology of Zionist Israel. He was accused of anti-Semitism, and in 2007 was denied the post of permanent professor.

Nathaniel Kappner, the most vocal critic of Jewish dominance in the US, grew up in a devout Jewish family in New York, but then converted to Russian Orthodoxy. Now he is a wandering Christian missionary. He sends out weekly video clips under the brand name RealJewNews [8], in which criticizes various aspects of US domestic and foreign policy that have fallen under the influence of Jewish bankers and propagandists. Another site, The Unz Review,[9] founded by a Jew, provides its pages to a variety of critics of Jewish domination in the United States. Among them is a former Soviet Jew and human rights activist Israel Shamir (Израэль Шамир)[10]. Having immigrated to Israel, Shamir became disaffected by both Israel and its American patrons and now is a champion of one-state solution with equal rights for the Palestinians.[11]

[4] Although there is a good review of it, the author of the review Pepe Escobar writes that in the US anyone who "says that the Israeli lobby is there," also runs the risk of being accused of anti-Semitism. 04/06/2008. https://inosmi.ru/world/20080604/241772.html

[8] “My Name Is Brother Nathanael Kappner. I'm A "Street Evangelist". I Grew Up As A Jew. I'm Now An Orthodox Christian.” http://realjewnews.com/

[9] The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection. A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media. https://www.unz.com/

[10] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шамир,Исраэль

[11] http://www.israelshamir.net/ru/ru.htm

Tsar Michael in Solzhenitsyn’s “GULAG”

Ironically, in his “Reflections on the February Revolution” Solzhenitsyn had been carried away by the Bolshevik-promoted superficial stereotype of Michael so much that he forgot even to mention the episode of his opus magnum “The Gulag Archipelago” in which he described his own encounter with a GULAG prisoner Mikhail Romanov. To be sure the prisoner was an imposter. Here is the scene of the new prisoner’s arrival:

“And who are you?”

The newcomer smiled with embarrassment: “The Emperor, Mikhail.”

An electric shock ran through us all. Once again we raisedourselves on our cots and looked at him. No, his shy, thin facewas not in the least like the face of Mikhail Romanov. And thenhis age too . . .”

Here is not the place to retell the whole of this authentic GULAG story.[1] As it turned out, the prisoner was Viktor Alekseyevich Belov, born around 1915. As a child, he was told by his plain plain-origin parents that in 1916 they received a visit of a man with a long Russian beard who prophesized their son a special destiny. In 1943, in the heat of war, Viktor who had grown a good man and chauffeur for army generals and party bosses, including Nikita Khrushchev, had his own encounter with the same stranger.

In 1943 he had been visiting his mother. She was doing the laundry and had gone out to the hydrant with her pails. The door opened and a portly stranger, an old man with a white beard, entered the house. He crossed himself at the icon there, looked sternly at Belov, and said to him:

“Hail, Mikhail. God gives you his bless- ing!” Belov replied: “My name is Viktor.” “But,” the old mancontinued, “you are destined to become Mikhail, the Emperor of Holy Russia!”

The stranger then told Viktor to prepare for 1953 when Soviet government would fall and he would become Emperor Mikhail.

Viktor took it seriously. So seriously, in fact, that soon after the war ended in 1945, not wishing to wait for the predicted year, he formed a group of a dozen adherents and wrote a Manifesto spelling out a number of reforms including the dissolution of hated collective farms and erasing the Red Kremlin. Soon “Emperor Michael” was arrested along with all would-be conspirators. All were condemned for long terms in the GULAG. They were lucky, because the interrogators, suspecting that Viktor was just a “holy fool”, refused to take the conspiracy seriously and saved them from a death sentence.

Unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn did not pursue the theme of “Holy Imposters” and told nothing about Viktor’s subsequent fate. One thing is clear, however. The Bolshevik strategy of obfuscation in respect to Michael’s death has backfired as it gave birth to a number of “pretenders to the thrown” whether real or imagined.[2]

Solzhenitsyn: Back to Historical Michael

Meanwhile, after returning to Russia in 1994, Solzhenitsyn did not stop his research on Russia’s history. In his 2002 book “Dvesti let vmeste” (‘two hundred years together’)[3] he shows a more nuanced understanding of the revolution than in “Reflections.” Unfortunately, this important book has not been translated into English for the long 15 ears. Finally, in 2017 it became accessible in English as “The Crucifixion of Russia: A new English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together”. [4]

Here is how he treats the murder of Michael in Perm now: “In general, throughout the whole revolution in all its events, a nationalities issue came to the fore. The ethnic identification of all the conspirators and co-conspirators, starting from the murder of Stolypin, affected Russian feelings. But what about the murder of the Tsar’s brother, Michael? Who are the murderers? Andrei Markov, Gavriil Myasnikov, Nikolai Zhuzhgov, Ivan Kolpaschikov - probably all of them ethnic Russians. Oh, how each person should think, whether he illuminates his nation with the ray of goodness or stabs it in the back with evil.” (II, p.92)[1] https://archive.org/stream/thegulag2/The-Gulag-Archipelago%20vol1_%20I-II%20-%20Solzhenitsyn_djvu.txt

[2] There have been at least half-a-dozen pretenders appearing in places from Moscow to Paris, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Udmurtia and even Solovki, the notorious labor camp in the Far North. See, for instance, the story of Serafim Umilennyi (Seraphim the Blessed) who claimed that the drunken assassins failed to kill Mikhail letting him escape to Belogorsky Monastary in the Perm region. He was eventually arrested under a false name and imprisoned in Solovki where under the holy name of Seraphim the Blessed he founded the underground catacomb Church to oppose Soviet-sponsored Moscow Patriarchy. https://www.otkrowenie.ru/статьи/соловецкая-сокровищница/михаил-второй-романов-соловецкий-серафим-умиленный/

The last phrase is thrown in the face of Solzhenitsyn’s contemporaries and descendants, all those who consider themselves Russian. Let's ask ourselves: Don’t we all, including monarchist and Orthodox activists, disproportionately pay more attention to the massacre in Yekaterinburg than to the crime in Perm, because in the first case, the blame can be put squarely on “non-Russians”: Latvians, Hungarians and, of course, Jews? Isn’t the latter also linked to the allegation of ritual nature of the atrocity?

Hegumen (now bishop) Mitrofan recalls the salvation of Michael's prayer icon by his grandfather at a forum in the Mikhail Palace at 54 English Embankment, St. Petersburg, 19 May 2010.

​Such an approach to the key events in Russian history is flawed because it puts the cart before the horse. That is, before we find out WHAT happened, we ask ourselves secondary questions about relative guilt and merits of the victims and executioners. This can only lead us into a jungle of emotionality and mutual resentment.

As to WHAT HAPPENED - here too opinions differ, both in meaning, and in scale. Many will agree that the two revolutions in Russia in 1917, especially in October, are "Great" events, no matter whether we like it or not. But in what sense are they “great”-- in “good” or “bad”?

Patriarch Cyril and Alexander Tsipko: October Grandiose or Great?

Patriarch Kirill recently called the October Revolution "Grandiose" and thus attracted to himself the censure of the thoughtful analyst Alexander Tsipko[1]. Tsipko believes it is inappropriate for the Patriarch to use a nice word to label an event that caused such a large-scale persecution of Christians, as had not happened since the time of Nero. Still, I am inclined to think that, for the Patriarch, “grandiose” does not mean “commendable”. Rather, he probably had in mind such a "megalomanic" event on a truly colossal scale that it allowed to dispense with the lives of millions of Orthodox Christians as well as the believers of other faiths, including the Jews.

One might even call the October Revolution (or coup) not just Great, but the Greatest Ever, at least, since the time of Amenhotep IV, the pharaoh of ancient Egypt. The Pharaoh declared himself Akhenaten, the son of the Sun, subjugated the mighty priestly estate, and moved the country’s capital to a city he built. His religious reforms were truly revolutionary as they produced the most calamitous changes in the politics and religion of Ancient Egypt, but did not survive him. He only ruled for 17 years, from 1353 to 1336 BCE. His reign is called the “Amarnaperiod”.[2]

The October Revolution was no less calamitous. For the system of societal values ​​in the USSR, like that in ancient Egypt, “was turned upside down, like a potter's wheel”, as the ancient papyri said. Didn’t we want indeed, according to Mayakovsky, “to change life all over, to the last button in our clothes”? Everything that used to be “good” for generations of Russians became “bad” in our time. Sacred no longer was old-fashioned “love”, as class struggle required “hatred.” The “trinity” we came to venerate was Marx, Engels and Lenin. Our experiment with the construction of a new model of human development has failed. But the heirs of “our classics” who are still among us might feel proud that “we beat the pharaoh”, both in the duration of the struggle for utopia inside the country, and the effect it produced beyond our borders.

“The Holy Trinity” of the USSR

The main difference between the October Revolution and the revolution of the Son of the Sun God was that it was conceived not as an internal Russian cause, but as the beginning of a world revolution. The Comintern immediately attempted to export the Revolution abroad, where it already had support. Isn’t that why we got stuck in Soviet experiment for much longer than necessary? After all, it wasn’t just a national project.

The intentions of the Bolsheviks, as well as the bifurcation in the awareness of Russian people, were precisely expressed by Alexander Blok:

These sentiments reflect the gigantomania of the violent Russian-Jewish excursion into the utopia of the 20th century. Vasily Grossman, a veteran of the Second World War and author of the book "Life and Fate" («Жизнь и судьба»), banned in the USSR, reasonably asked: And how is a class war better than a racial one?[3]

Well, probably, “better”, because it lasted for 73 years, and its apologists are not completely debunked, and never apologized. That is, October broke the records of the Great French and English “bourgeois” Revolutions, and that of the pharaoh Akhenaten, not to mention Hitler’s.​[1] Alexander Tsipko. "The dispute with Patriarch Cyril: the word "grandiose "is not applicable to the destruction program. Why didn’t my mate in the student hostel want to live in a system of Soviet absurdity?"http://www.mk.ru/social/2017/12/19/spor-s-patriarkhom-kirillom-slovo-grandioznaya-neprimenimo-k-programme-unichtozheniya.html

[2] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Эхнатон​[3] According to Alexander Etkind's book “Crooked Grief: The Memory of the Unburied”, Grossman's novel “Life and Fate” («Жизнь и судьба»), written in the 1950s but read in the USSR only in the 1990s, could only influence the post-Soviet imagination. After the collapse of the USSR, a former member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Alexander Yakovlev, drew a parallel between the Soviet regime and Nazi Germany: “This was a full-fledged fascism of the Russian type. The tragedy is that we did not repent of it.” Yakovlev was the head of the Presidential Commission for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression and knew full well that "rehabilitation" was by no means synonymous with repentance.https://postnauka.ru/longreads/59446

Vladimir Buldakov

Among new historians, Vladimir Buldakov's book "The Red Troubles" («Красная смута») deserves praise precisely for the theme indicated in the subtitle: “The Nature and Consequences of Revolutionary Violence”.[1]

According a readers’ review, Buldakov's book is a "Mont Blanc of facts about the mutual brutality of the civil war", which, however, "does not abolish the simple consequence that, as a result, Russia was in the hands of ‘Others’. And it's not about ‘blood’ and the notorious Jewish percentage in the Central Committee and the Cheka and the savage brutality of non-Russians ... it was a war of all against all. But as a result, Russia turned out to be a springboard for the hastily formed Comintern, and the people of Russia were held hostage by the insane project of the world revolution”.

In an interview with Galina Sapozhnikova[2], Buldakov noted that “from its very beginnings Russia was in need of external management - so, according to the legend, with the help of Rurik, she managed to get out of her home-grown turmoil. The need for a leading higher independent power exists always and everywhere. But in Russia, the search for it has always concentrated not so much around faith, but around an ideal power”.

“So, are we romantics by nature?” Sapozhnikova asked. Buldakov replied: “We have a lot of excess emotions. We are always striving for an ideal.” In this way he paraphrased the saying about the Russian soul being so broad, generous and expansive that it needs to be narrowed down. However, Buldakov comforts the supporters of the “broad” soul: “Systemic crises are not at all a consequence and evidence of an inborn Russian foolishness. Quite the contrary. Civilizations were built by people disciplined and even limited, but not capable of asking themselves eternal questions. Against this background, the Russian looks ‘excessively talented’, as one who prefers a transcendent ideal to earthly orderliness”.

When asked about the “rebel gene” in Russian national character, Buldakov replied: “The question is not that simple. Individual rebellion is one thing. The other is collective rebellion, especially in Russia. We lived in a very sparse social space, lacking information. It was almost impossible for us to conduct a stable dialogue with each other and with the authorities, so this turned into enforced social silence. Discontent accumulates, people suffer, then explode.”

These are the features of the Russian national character – aside from and not so much as the alleged machinations of the Jews - that led to a huge preponderance of the Jewish ethnos in the administration of the apparatus of the new communist state.

[2] Interview with Galina Sapozhnikova "The Virus of Revolution. Why do revolutionary situations repeat themselves and can they be predicted?”https://www.kp.ru/daily/25977.4/2911573/

Vladimir Bols​hakov and Pyotr Astafyev

Along with Solzhenitsyn, the topic of Russian-Jewish relations has long and fruitfully been explored by the former Soviet journalist Vladimir Bolshakov. After the death of Solzhenitsyn, he published the trilogy “Zionism and Communism. Roots of kinship and causes of enmity” («Сионизм и коммунизм. Корни родства и причины вражды»)[1], in which he gives his insight into the problems. The name of each book within the trilogy speaks for itself: (1) “With the Talmud and the red flag. Secrets of the World Revolution” («С талмудом и красным флагом. Тайны мировой революции»;[2]; (2) “Red Khazaria and Hitler. Who was protecting the Zionists” («Красная Хазария и Гитлер. Кто крышевал сионистов»);[3]; and (3) “The Blue Star Versus the Red. How the Zionistsbecame the gravediggers of communism” («Голубая звезда против красной. Как сионисты стали могильщиками коммунизма»).[4]

I have no intention to discuss the works of Bolshakov here, but his desire to remain objective seems sincere. As he himself writes, “there is nothing personal” in his concept and “I am alien to anti-Semitism and Judophobia, and the problem of the relationship between Zionism and communism. The task of analysing Judaism and its varieties, I approach exclusively as a researcher.”[5]

After the publication of "Zionism in the Service of Anti-Communism" («Сионизм на службе антикоммунизма») [6] in 1972, Bolshakov abandoned this topic, “but not because it ceased to be relevant. Take, for example, a story about the notorious ‘Jackson-Vanik amendment’. It was adopted in protest against the ban on the departure of the Jews from the USSR ... Nonetheless, it continued to be applied until 2012, when it was replaced by the ‘Magnitsky Law’. This fact in itself points to the linkage of the times - the crusade of the Zionists against Russia began even before the establishment of Soviet power and still continues to this day.”

In the book “With the Talmud and the Red Flag. Secrets of the World Revolution” («С талмудом и красным флагом. Тайны мировой революции»[7]) he writes: “It was barely possible to find a more favorable moment to unobtrusively, and at the same time convincingly, emphasize the kinship between Zionism and Communism.”

No matter how one might view Bolshakov's anti-Zionist stand, his trilogy is full of finds. He discovered for himself - and for the country - the works of the Russian writer and philosopher Pyotr Astafyev (1846 - 1893) [8], who was one of the first to note that “the features that characterize Jewry and give it such great importance and power in modern day life are at the same time the basic principles of the victorious bourgeois class that has been formed over the last two centuries”.

“This force, unknown to the classical or the Christian world”, says Astayiev, “is purely social, but nonetheless has gained the upper hand over political, state and national forces, constitutes the strength of the bourgeoisie. The natural spiritual kinship with Jewry, the natural bearer of the same principles, accounts for its equally natural union with this new conqueror of the whole modern world - now give the Jewry that significance of world power that it never had before.” (pp. 38-39, “With the Talmud and the Red Flag")

Bolshakov is quick to point out that Astafyev’s view of the Jewish role in business is similar to that of Karl Marx, who wrote in the article “To the Jewish Question” that "The struggle against Jewry, therefore, is, first of all, a struggle against the bourgeoisie and its modern domination."

[8] Pyotr Evgenievich Astafiev (1846 - 1893). In his philosophical and psychological writings, Astafyev appealed to the spiritual heritage of patristicism, and criticised European rationalism, especially the German absolute idealism and various forms of influence of the latter on Russian thought. http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_a/astafev_pe.php

Bolshakov especially praises Astafyev for pointing out “the insecurity of patriarchal Russia that had to face the (double) onslaught of the bourgeoisie" and of Jewry. According to Astafiev, “the lack of will and perseverance, for the sake of utilitarian purposes, and the great emotionality” of Russian people make them especially vulnerable to such an onslaught. “In our national character lies almost contempt for all of this. Hence, we cannot compete against Jewish cohesion, its sobriety, moderation, practicality, the primacy of family relations, etc. We, in relation to the Jews, are themostdefenselessrace."

Bolshakov is quick to point out the special relevance of these words “after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia's transition to a free, that is, capitalist, economy, the Russian people really turned out to be the most defenseless.”[9]

[9] “With the Talmud and the Red Flag: Secrets of the World Revolution.”http://rusinst.ru/docs/books/V.V.Bolshakov-Sionizm_i_kommunizm.pdf (с. 40)

Slyozkin echoes Astafiev and Solzhenitsyn

Astafiev’s lesson leads directly to the book by the American professor Yuri Slezkine, “The Era of Mercury. JewsintheModernWorld” («Эра Меркурия. Евреи в современном мире»)?[1] The publisher describes it as follows: “This book by the famous historian, and Professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Yuri Slezkine, explains the reasons for the astonishing success and unique vulnerability of the Jews in the modern world; it looks at Marxism and Freudianism as attempts to solve the Jewish question...” The book discusses the three main paths chosen by the Jewry of Russia in 1917: emigration to America in order to assimilate, emigration to Palestine in order to create the state of Israel, and resettlement throughout the cities of Russia to turn it into the USSR.

The book was published in English in 2004 under the title “The Jewish Century”. Its main thesis is "The modern era is the Jewish era, and the twentieth century is the Jewish century".[2] It's easy to agree with the publishers that this is “one of the most original and intellectually provocative books on Jewish culture for many years.” Slezkine brought the Jews out of the ghetto of exclusivity by conditionally dividing the whole of humanity into Apollonian people, named after Apollo, the Greek god of reason and the settled life, and the admirers of Hermes, the Greek god of craft, mediation, commerce and, it’s no secret, trickery. In the Roman Empire, Hermes expanded his territory under the name of Mercury.

The Russian title of the book by Slezkine «Эра Меркурия. Евреи в современном мире»[3] seems polemically directed against the current followers of Marx who would prefer to brand the neo-liberal economy of globalism as the age of Mammon, the Jewish god of gain.

As worshipers of Mercury, the Jews, according to Slezkine, are not alone. In the same group, he includes Armenians, Gypsies, Parsis (Zoroastrians) in India and expat Chinese. He thinks globally: “All these groups were secondary producers, specializing in providing goods and services to the surrounding agricultural or pastoral population. Their main resources were people, not nature; their main specialty was ‘foreign affairs’. They were descendants - or ancestors - of Hermes (Mercury), the god of all those who do not herd, do not cultivate the land and do not live by the sword; patron of intermediaries, translators and defectors; defender of skill, art and cunning”.[4]

Slezkine is well aware of the fate Jews in the USSR, as well as of their assimilation in America.[5] In this respect, his book complements Solzhenitsyn's book, which was published a little earlier. Alas, neither one nor the other has received the necessary attention of the Russian intelligentsia, neither have they provoked an open and benevolent debate on this hot topic.

In view of the ideologization of Soviet education, its dogmatism within the framework of pseudoscientific Marxism-Leninism, the very topic of different national characters and types of behavior was renounced as “reactionary” and contrary to the spirit of “proletarian internationalism.” But without this topic, one can hardly understand what happened in Russia in 1917! Hopefully, the writings of Astafyev, Solzhenitsyn, Slezkine, and Bolshakov will pave the way for further research and objective evaluation on a global scale.

Vadim Nesterov, in his review of Slezkine’s book, notes that his publishers recommended it as a kind of antipode to Solzhenitsyn's book "200 Years Together”. However, Nesterov disagrees as the “antipode” book seems to confirm Solzhenitsyn's most controversial findings. Noting that “both authors consider in detail the problem of ‘Jews in the revolution of 1917’”, Nesterov finds that “Slezkine almost always does not refute, but confirms, the theses of Alexander Isaevich and often goes much further”. For example, “In 1918, 65.5% of all employees of the Cheka of Jewish nationality held ‘positions of responsibility’. Jews accounted for 19.1% of all investigators in the central apparatus and 50% of investigators of the counter-revolutionary activities.”

According to Nesterov, “Slezkine seems to provide deliberately arguments and facts to the benefit of anti-Semites: a story about the two most famous and symbolic acts of the Red Terror - the murder of Nicholas II and his family, and the killing of thousands of refugees and prisoners of war in the Crimea - were led exclusively by Jews.” The role of the Jews did not diminish in the management of the GULAGs. Nesterov praises Slezkine for acknowledging that “all senior posts in the infamous GULAG construction of the White Sea Channel were occupied by former inhabitants of the Pale of Settlement with scrupulous enumeration and unreserved disclosure of their pseudonyms…”[6][1] Yuri Slezkine. “The Era of Mercury. Jews in the Modern World” (Эра Меркурия. Евреи в современном мире.) Translated by Sergei Ilyinhttps://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=1037608

[5] Slezkine was not among more than three hundred thousand Soviet Jews who immigrated to the US legally. Probably, wanting to avoid the humiliating procedure of asking Soviet "authorities" for the permission to "reunite with his family in Israel," he did not take advantage of this "Jewish privilege" over other Soviet citizens. As a translator from Portuguese, Yuri, whose ancestors included both Cossacks and Jews, left the Soviet delegation in Lisbon in 1982 and went to America.

[6] Vadim Nesterov. “Jewish are the best and it’s been proven by science” (Евреилучшие — доказанонаукой). 23.05.2005,https://www.gazeta.ru/2005/05/23/oa_158393.shtml

In the US, Solzhenitsyn was branded "anti-Semitic" for the fact that he named the Jewish leaders of the Gulag

Slezkine also notes the disproportionately high participation of Jews in the apparatus of repression. Everyone who ended up in the clutches of the Cheka probably faced Jewish Chekists[7]. At the same time, he notes that during the Great Terror of 1937-1938, only one percent of Jews were arrested for political reasons, while 30% of Latvians who served the Soviet government suffered at the time.[8]

It is not remarkable that Eugenia Ginzburg(Евгения Гинзбург), who spent 18 years in Soviet prisons[9], suggested in her book “Steep Route” («Крутой маршрут»)[10] that one must distinguish ordinary Jews from “Yids” who worked in the Cheka or reported back there. According to some reports, Ginzburg wrote an even more “radical” anti-Soviet version of the "Steep Route" titled "Under the Canopy of Lucifer’s Wing".

[10] For information about the novel https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Крутой_маршрут​

Andrei Kurayev

Protodeacon Andrei Kurayev, an independent church figure, in his book “How they make you an anti-Semite” («Как делают антисемитом»)[1] believes, like Bolshakov, that “the inescapable revolutionary maximalist enthusiasm of Jews has its roots in religion.”

On the other hand, he notes that “those authors who analyze Russian-Jewish relations with conclusions undesirable for their Jewish critics - Rozanov, Solzhenitsyn, Kozhinov, Shafarevich, Shulgin, Soloukhin - say a lot of bitter things about our Russian guilt and our Russian diseases.”

According to Kurayev, “Repentance and self-flagellation are two of the most obvious and profound features of Russian culture, not only at a high literary level, but on a domestic scale as well...”

[1] Andrei Kurayev “How they make you an anti-Semite” («Какделаютантисемитом»), М., Odigitria, 1998 .https://predanie.ru/kuraev-andrey-protodiakon/book/218537-kak-delayut-antisemitom/My references are to this edition, although there is a new edition.

Dmitriy Filippov

One of the talented post-Soviet generation writers, Dmitry Filippov, attacks the topic of Russian-Jewish relations with both verve and sensitivity. He does not do this as a public advocate or a people's tribune, but as the author of a novel with a seemingly affirmative nationalist title, “I am Russian” («Я – русский») [1] Filippov lets his fictional hero, Andrei Voznesensky, whose name mimics the famous Soviet poet, speak on the issue. In the chapter “The Word about the Jews,” Andrei first spells out a long list of Jewish oligarchs in charge of Russia’s economy. Then, he hurries to point out, as Lydia Ginsburg did during Soviet era, that “Yids and Jews are not the same thing”.

Filippov makes his hero Andrei ponder: “Before blaming our misfortunes on Jews, let's dig deeper inside ourselves. Who is a Russian? An unemployed peasant who gets dead-drunk in a deserted village? Or a worker who works to the seventh sweat? A fat obnoxious traffic cop waiting for bribes on the roadside? Or a minor official toiling in corporate slavery? An effete party-goer dreaming of leaving Russia? A skinhead? Or Mandelstam, Pasternak, Brodsky, Lotman, Schnittke? (all names indicate outstanding Soviet cultural figures of Jewish origin.- Translator) Which one is more Russian?” The question is not trivial. Filippov lets his fictional character conclude with a call for introspection: “until we figure it out, the Eternal Yid will not leave my country.”

Filippov finds it necessary to remind the readers that “The meaning of the word ‘Yid’ has changed in the last hundred years. From the pejorative ethnonym for Jewry, it became the symbol of Golden Calf worshippers”.

According to him, “A Yid is a man without a homeland, without a conscience, without God. And it has nothing to do with either nationality or blood. A yid can be a Jew, a Russian, a Tatar, an American, a Frenchman, an Ethiopian ... Anyone. Rothschild is a yid! Yeltsin is a yid! Kissinger is a yid! Anyone who equates the idea of ​​equality with death is an Eternal Yid.”

Of course, Filippov’s reasoning (or rather, of his fictional hero) can be challenged, not only by those named "yids", but also by such analysts as Slezkine, Kurayev, Buldakov and Bolshakov, as soon as he starts fighting for "equality" with the help of revolutionary violence as advocated by one of the most zealous “yid-haters,” Karl Marx.

[1] Dmitriy FILIPPOV. Novel “I am Russian” (Роман Я – РУССКИЙ). М.: Literaturnaya Rossiya, 2015. According to the publishers, the author "focused on the urgent problems of today ... dealt with the misfortunes that attacked the country in the ‘nineties’. He describes the life of two generations that turned out to be infected by the energies of destruction."

It is clear that, in order to understand what happened to our country a hundred years ago, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the national and religious characters of both Russians and Jews. This is not easy to do, because for too long Soviet propaganda had rejected the very notion of a “national character” as “reactionary”, especially when laced with an admixture of the religious “opium” for the people. I know this from my own experience as a historian-ethnographer and participant in several expeditions of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Only after I landed in the West, I was able to become acquainted with Max Weber's book “Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism.” [1] Its thesis is simple: the main reason for the difference in the high standard of living in some countries and the poverty in others is down to ethics. The countries of Northern Europe and America have succeeded in free markets capitalism chiefly due to the ethics of Protestantism with its emphasis on hard work, diligence, thrift, self-discipline, enterprise, sobriety and prudence, as well as family and individual responsibility. Since Protestantism prevailed there since the 16th century, it helped to foster a sort of national character, except connected not with ethnic origin or race, but rather with the characteristics of the prevailing religious denomination, whether Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism and other branches of Protestantism.

In his other works, Weber noted that the Russian Old Believers, Catholic Poles and Jews of the Russian Empire, acquired the same “business” qualities without going over to Protestantism, but simply because the unfriendly, and sometimes hostile, environment of the Empire compelled them to be more diligent, more enterprising, and sober. It fostered a greater individual responsibility. Not for nothing, on the eve of the revolution, Russian Old believers were among Russia’s richest entrepreneurs, generous charity givers and benefactors for the arts.

Weber's books were not published in the USSR. I am convinced that if the country had spent even a thousandth part of what was spent on propaganda of the "classics" of Marxism-Leninism to print and popularize Weber’s books instead, Soviet people would not have been so woefully unprepared for the challenges of the 1990s when Russia switched overnight to a market economy. Even now the Russians are suffering from of the “soviet” habit of dependency. While the government keeps on promising to stimulate small business, oligarchic monopolies reduce all these promises to naught. Far from getting rid of the old vices, like drunkenness and idle talk, many Russians continue to live a life of indolence and passive acceptance of what has befallen them.

We again have to remind ourselves of Astafyev's prediction (see above) that “the struggle of these people (Russians) against Jewry is absolutely impossible ... Other nations, for example, the French, the Germans, and the English – have some of the same inherent Jewish characteristics: formal reason, will, utilitarianism, in short, moderation and accuracy and diligence. In our national character lies almost contempt for all this.” Ivan Goncharov, [2] the author of “Oblomov”,[3] was painfully aware of this, when he juxtaposed a sincere, noble and kind, but inert and inept main Russian character Oblomov with that of Andrei Schtolz, a much more energetic and pragmatic Russian of German origin.

Alas, after the revolution, the German “business” component of both the Russian nobility and the merchant class was destroyed. (Remember the pogroms in the German districts of Moscow during the First World War!) The fate of the enterprising Russian Old Believers was also bitter: businessmen, benefactors and patrons of the art of tsarist Russia were replaced by atheistic Jewry semi-legal entrepreneurs subservient to the new secular faith of Marxism-Leninism and Soviet apparatus of political repression.

[1] Max Weber was a 19th-century German sociologist and one of the founders of modern sociology. Journalist, Anti-War Activist, Political Scientist, Sociologist, Literary Critic, Philosopher, Educator, Scholar, Economist (1864–1920). He wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in 1905.https://www.biography.com/people/max-weber-9526066

[2] Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (1812 –1891) was a Russian novelist best known for his novels A Common Story (1847), Oblomov (1859), and The Precipice (1869). He also served in many official capacities, including the position of censor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Goncharov

[3] Oblomov is the second novel by Goncharov. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is the central character of the novel, portrayed as the ultimate incarnation of the superfluous man, a symbolic character in 19th-century Russian literature. He is a young, generous nobleman who seems incapable of making important decisions or undertaking any significant actions. Throughout the novel he rarely leaves his room or bed. In the first 50 pages, he manages only to move from his bed to a chair. The book was is a satire of Russian nobility whose social and economic function was increasingly questioned in mid-nineteenth century Russia. The novel has been used to describe the ever-so-elusive 'Russian mentality' or 'Russian soul'. The novel was popular when it came out, and some of its characters and devices have imprinted on Russian culture and language.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov

Avigdor Eskin on Solzhenitsyn

Another response to Solzhenitsyn's book deserves attention. A book by Avigdor Eskin (АвигдорЭскин)[1], called “The Jewish View on the Russian Question” («Еврейский взгляд на русский вопрос») was conceived as a mirror image of Solzhenitsyn's plan. What lures in the author is that he is a former Soviet dissident who fought for the right of Jews to learn Hebrew that was denied in the USSR. Once arrested for distributing Solzhenitsyn's works, Eskin now lives in Israel, but often appears on Russian television.[2]

Eskin says he wants to promote friendship between Russian nationalists and Israeli Zionists. As for the revolutions of 1917 in Russia, he asks a bold, albeit paradoxical question: “What are the causes of the joint Russian-Jewish fall into the sinfulness of communism and liberalism?” I am prepared to agree with him about the “joint fall”. However, I cannot agree when he seeks to associate communism with liberalism under one yoke. Even recognizing the fact that liberalism, as practiced by the adherents of the Provisional Government, cleared the way for a Bolshevik coup, liberal values ​​were, and still remain, contrary to the ideals and practices of the Bolsheviks.

Nevertheless, I might concede that Eskin's book is “the first serious attempt at a Russian-Jewish dialogue after the publication of Solzhenitsyn's book ‘Two Hundred Years Together’”, as the publishers proffer it. For that Eskin deserves a gratitude! Personally, I would, however, prefer to hear a whole polyphony of various Jewish and Russian voices, including liberals and honest Communists who are looking for the causes of this spectacular joint Russian-Jewish “fall into the sin of 1917”.

Eskin is right in saying that Solzhenitsyn's personality goes beyond the accepted limits of the familiar word “writer”. It is also wrong to treat him merely as a political or social writer. “For who else was able to absorb and embody the whole of our twentieth century?” asks Eskin. This question still reverberates across Russia.

“Manyhumanrightsactivistsofbelieved in the seventies that, should the USSR settle in the image and likeness of the West, then the messianic era will begin”, recalls Eskin only to conclude that “Solzhenitsyn always thought a few steps ahead. Even in his ‘Letter to the Leaders’ of 1973, he warns against repeating the mistakes of February 1917” (p. 76)

Moreover, Eskin defends Solzhenitsyn from scurrilous attacks of those who fail to see the writer’s ethical thrust. “How can you blame him for imperialism and chauvinism, if at the very first Solzhenitsyn called for ‘repentance and self-restraint’, for the capacity to reproach oneself first and not blame others?” (p.77)

Finally, Eskin throws a gauntlet to the Russians of today who failed to embrace Solzhenitsyn’s ideas when he was alive: “Solzhenitsyn departed this life misunderstood and lonely. Enraged to fanaticism, the democrats see in him now a reactionary cleric-chauvinist, a rabid Russian imperialist and even an anti-Semite. Chauvinistic patriots brand him for ‘Zionism’ and even draw a parallel between a rail-road car with Lenin in 1917 (allowed by the warring Germany to traverse its territory to foment trouble in Russia.-Translator[3]) and the coming-home train in which Solzhenitsyn traveled from Vladivostok to Moscow. Not a single functioning or creative organization in Russia has seen him as a mentor or a guide”. (p. 77)

[3] Read “Lenin and the Russian Spark”. By Ted Widmer The New Yorker. April 20, 2017. “A hundred years ago this week, a German train that had been secretly carrying Lenin and other revolutionaries ended its journey in St. Petersburg…The Germans who had sent Lenin were also hopeful. Soon after his arrival, a German diplomat in Sweden wrote a note to a colleague: “Lenin’s entry into Russia successful. He is working exactly as we would wish.” https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/lenin-and-the-russian-spark

Messianism among the Jews and the Russians

The Jews also have a heavy baggage of both glorious biblical traditions and humiliating modern disasters. It can be said that the Jews of Russia felt they were going through their national and religious crisis. Like the Russians, this crisis was rooted in the tradition of messianic consciousness, which presupposes a certain sense of superiority over other peoples. In Russia, messianism was manifested in the concept of the Third Rome on the ecclesiastical level, in the dream of conquering Constantinople from the Ottoman Empire on the political level, and in the popular tendency of the Russian holy fools to be inclined towards masochism for a just cause.

As for the Jews, they see their messianism embedded in the Torah, particularly in the legends about the ability of Jews to manage, not so much their own state, but rather the rulers of those nations who conquered and seemingly subjugated them.

Among them is the story of Josef[1] who was sold into Egyptian slavery by his brothers, but then gained the trust of the Pharaoh. The exodus of the Jews from Egypt followed, under the command of Moses.[2] Then there is the story of Judith (Юдифь), who decapitated the Assyrian commander Holofernes[3], as well as the legend of Esther (предание об Эсфири), who charmed the Persian king so much that he rejected his general Haman allowing the Jews to kill all his soldiers. [4]

In the newer history, the Messianic tradition of the Jews was revived in the Ottoman Empire of the seventeenth century by Sabbatai Zevi, one of the historical Jewish false messiahs[5]. In the nineteenth century, Jewish messianism, now based on the ideas of the French Revolution and Socialism, flourished in Germany.

Ferdinand Lassalle (Фердинанд Лассаль),[6] a socialist born into an orthodox Jewish family, dreamed at first of becoming a Jewish messiah-avenger. "However, his aspirations and views rapidly changed ... life made him the messiah of the German working class, seemingly and exclusively against the Jews: ‘I do not like Jews at all, in fact I despise them’. Karl Marx, who despised the Jews even more, called Lassalle a ‘Negro’ Jew, i.e. the worst".[7]

Moses Hess (Мозес Гесс), the ‘communist rabbi’, forerunner of Marx and the first teacher of Friedrich Engels, wrote that "Jews are soulless mummies, phantoms stuck in this world.” He liked to “juxtapose the humane God of Christians with the nationalist God of Abraham". However, his opinion subsequently changed radically. [8] (p.147)

An Israeli author, Peter Luchimson, notes in the preface to his book about the American Jewish writer Bashevis-Singer that "in communist circles, the attitude toward messianism was ‘just as recklessly zealous as the attitude of religious Jews to the image of the Messiah’. Luchimson cites the authority of Berdyaev that "the mass involvement of Jews in the October Revolution was largely due to the fact that Karl Marx was associated, amongst many of them, with the Messiah, and the communist society he painted was a real embodiment of the dream of the Jewish prophets about messianic (goals)".[9]

[1] Joseph is an important figure in the Bible's Book of Genesis and also in the Quran. Sold into slavery by his jealous brothers, he rose to become vizier, the second most powerful man in Egypt next to Pharaoh, where his presence and office caused Israel to leave Canaan and settle in Egypt. In Rabbinic tradition, Joseph is considered the ancestor of another Messiah called, "Mashiach ben Yosef", according to which he will wage war against the evil forces alongside Mashiach ben David and die in combat with the enemies of God and Israel.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_(Genesis)

[2] Exodus is a biblical legend about the enslavement of Jews in Egypt, their mass exodus from Egypt under the leadership of Moses, the obtaining of a covenant between God and the chosen people, and the wanderings of the Jews before the conquest of Canaan. Narrated in the Pentateuch (Exodus, chapters 1 - 15).https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Исход

[3] Judith is a character in the Old Testament non-canonical book of Judit. She is a Jewish widow who saved her hometown from the Assyrians. She is a symbol of the struggle of the Jews against their oppressors. She is "beautiful and very attractive". After the Assyrian troops besieged her hometown, she dressed up and went to an enemy camp, where she caught the attention of commander Holofernes. When he got drunk and fell asleep, she decapitated him, and the town was saved. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Юдифь

[4] Haman obtained the king's consent to issue a decree for the extermination of the Jews. Upon learning this, Mordecai demanded that Esther should intercede before the king for her people. Esther, in fear of losing her position and life, appeared in front of the king and invited him to a feast prepared by her, during which she asked for the Jews to be protected. Learning the real truth, the king ordered Haman to be hanged on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai, and sent out a new decree confirming the right of the Jews to exterminate those who attacked them. The Jews rebelled and killed many enemies (about 70 thousand people), and the ten sons of Haman were subjected to the fate of their father.https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Есфирь

[5] Sabbatai Zevi (1 August 1 1626, Smyrna, Anatolia, Ottoman Empire – 30 September 1676, Dulcinho, Rumelia, Ottoman Empire) was a kabbalist, one of the most famous Jewish false messiahs; leader of a mass movement of the seventeenth century that spread to many Jewish communities and received its name from him - Sabbatianism, the heretical line of Judaism. This messianic movement almost ceased when Sabbatai unexpectedly converted to Islam. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шабтай_Цви

[6] Ferdinand Lassalle (1825, Breslau-1864, Geneva) - German philosopher, lawyer, economist and politician. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Лассаль,_ФердинандOn his messianism and relations with Marx, see V.V. Bolshakov, "With the Talmud and the Red Flag. Secrets of the World Revolution" https://public.wikireading.ru/79295

[7] Quotes from Jewish messianic figures are given by the pages of the book: Eugene Sarom, "Awake Russia", Omsk, Parsus, 2011 (The investigator’s file)https://books.google.ru/books?isbn=9789471750

[8] About Moses Hesse see Vladimir Bolshakov, “With the Talmud and the Red Flag”. One of the founders of Zionism and “scientific communism”, the mentor of Karl Marx, Moses Hesse wrote "Rome and Jerusalem", which became the Zionist handbook, where he stated: "First comes race struggle, class struggle is secondary ... Every Jew must first of all be a Jewish patriot." (Moses Hesse, "Rome and Jerusalem", Tel-Aviv, 1979).https://www.litres.ru/vladimir-bolshakov/s-talmudom-i-krasnym-flagom-tayny-mirovoy-revolucii-2/chitat-onlayn/

[9] Peter Luchimson. Preface to the book “The Last Devil. Life and work of Isaac Bashevis-Singer” - https://books.google.ru/books?isbn=5040490062 См. также https://www.livelib.ru/author/122117-pjotr-lyukimson

Is Karl Marx a Jewish Messiah or a German Atheist?

Undoubtedly, for many Jews, especially atheists, Marx was and remains a figure of the first magnitude. He can be called anti-religious, anti-Christian and, just as important, anti-Judaic and anti-Jewish “messiah”. It might be more appropriate to call him a false Jewish messiah. In the USSR, his messianic role was downplayed because of its sharply anti-Jewish line. Moreover, Soviet atheist propaganda wanted to replace the religious “opium for the people” with more modern “scientific” variety. In any case, it became a revelation for me when, shortly after my escape to Sweden, I found in the library of the University of Gothenburg his article about Jewish love of “huckstering,” “usury” and “money” in general. In a polemic with Bruno Bauer, young Marx addressed this problem head-on:

“Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time”.[1]Alas, in the country created according to Marx’s “scientific economy” blueprint, his criticism of the Jews was either not known at all or kept concealed.

After moving to the USA and joining there a community of university professors and sovietologists, I noticed that my colleagues often condemned Stalin, and, on occasion, Lenin. But to touch Marx was considered somehow indecent and certainly politically incorrect.[1] Suspecting that Marx's calls to overthrow capitalism through the global revolution of the proletariat were not rooted in the OBJECTIVE LAWS OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (OLSD), as we were taught in the USSR, but in his personality, I decided to investigate this topic further. As a result, in 1978 the conservative magazine “Modern Age" published my article "Karl Marx as Frankenstein: Toward a Genealogy of Communism". I then translated it into Russian for the émigré magazine “GRANI” [2]. The article was highly appreciated by Solzhenitsyn.

The basis for the article was the novel-myth of the young English writer Mary Shelley about Dr. Frankenstein’s attempt to create an artificial man in a laboratory. The attempt ended in the creation of the Beast about which his “father” was by no means happy. The Beast (under different pejorative names) eventually fled from the laboratory and Europe. Where to? To the vastness of Russia, where there was always a lot of room for European freaks. Because of the havoc created by the Beast, Dr. Frankenstein dedicated the rest of his life to the capture of his creation.[1] See my debate with Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard University who dismissed the importance of Marxism in Soviet foreign policy. Richard Pipes's Foreign Strategy: Anti-Soviet or Anti-Russian? Wladislaw G. Krasnow. The Russian ReviewVol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1979), pp. 180-191https://www.jstor.org/stable/128605?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contentsВладислав Краснов,Была ли стратегия США в Холодной Войне антисоветской или антирусской? О концепции профессора Ричарда Пайпса).17.07.2015, Russkaya narodnaya liniya (Русская народная линия)

Since Dr. Marx began his career as a romantic poet of militant atheist persuasion, in 1977, when I was teaching Russian Studies and Western Civilization courses at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, I conceived of the idea that his theory of creating a classless society in the ‘laboratory’ of the class struggle and world revolution, was spiritually akin to the fictional Dr. Frankenstein's attempt to create an artificial man. At the time, tension in relations between the USSR and the USA were exacerbated by a growing struggle for human rights, including the free departure of Soviet Jews - allegedly to Israel, but more often to the United States.

Among Russians, as well as other people of non-Jewish origin, it is customary to assume that some Jews often try to cheat, deceive and swindle non-Jews. With shame and a heavy heart Marx recognized the correctness of such observations. However, what Gentiles do not usually realize is that Jews sometimes cheat other Jews as well, as recently proved by American banker Bernard Madoff (Бернард Мэдофф)[3], who robbed even Israeli charitable associations. By and large, Jews are looking after their own and themselves. This was exactly the case with hundreds of Jewish Bolshevik in the USSR, especially during the Great Terror under Stalin, when the predominantly Jewish ‘guardians of Leninism’ were destroyed. The same happened during the Spanish Civil War. Even now, thousands of followers of Marxism throughout the world are digging their own graves.

[3] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandalhttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Афера_Бернарда_Мейдоффа

Or is Karl Marx a patient for Sigmund Freud?

There is something of an existential psychological problem with the Jews, which affect non-Jews no less. If Marx had lived longer, he could easily have made it onto psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud’s couch[1]. The probable diagnosis would be the ‘Oedipus complex’.[2] I do not know how familiar Freud was with the teachings of Marx. But if he had bothered to immerse himself in them, he might have diagnosed Marx with a desire not just to surpass, but even kill Jacob, the Father of the Jews, if not Yahweh himself.

However, since his university years Marx was immersed more deeply in Greek philosophy than in Jewish religion, Freud might have concluded that he was a follower of Prometheus, who attempted a revolt against Olympus, ruled by Zeus, the Father of the Gods. The fans of Marx lovingly called him ‘Prometheus’, who allegedly endowed humanity with the ability to use the flame, including to set the fire of revolutions.

However, if one reads carefully into his youthful poems, written when he dreamed of the glory as a poet, one would understand that Marx was not moved so much by love for the poor, but rather by hatred for the rich, the Gods of the established world order. In terms of mythology, he is less similar to Prometheus the Fire-Bringer for the benefit of mankind than to the alternative ancient image of Prometheus as a God-Hater[3], a Lucifer and demiurge who wants to create a new type of humankind to shame the Olympic establishment. In these attempts Marx succeeded neither less, nor more, than Dr. Frankenstein.

In reproaching his contemporaries and radical colleagues for their messianic ambitions, didn’t Marx dress himself in the toga of the secular Messiah? At the same time, he relied on the allegedly scientific and objective law of social development (OLSD). As a result, the false messiah turned out to be not only anti-capitalist, but also anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist (as Eskin would probably say). Some people have called Marx a self-hating Jew. Apparently at least since the Age of Reason and French revolution, the “progressive” and “anti-clerical” Western intellectuals have become so enamoured of their own “reason” that they lost all common sense, forgetting, for instance that hatred, including self-hatred, can beget only more hatred and self-annihilation.

As for the Russians, they, suffering from their ingrained century-old complex of inferiority toward the West, merely followed the atheist Jewish Marxist shepherds, themselves a tiny minority of their small nation beyond the pale of settlement of the huge Russian Empire. The Russian turmoil and calamity of the 20th century grew out of the fermentation of the yeast of Jewish anti-Judaic heresy.

[1] Sigmund Freud (born Sigismund Schlomo Freud; 6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, a clinical method for treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst.[4]Freud was born to Galician Jewish parents in the Moravian town of Freiberg, in the Austrian Empire... Freud's Jewish origins and his allegiance to his secular Jewish identity were of significant influence in the formation of his intellectual and moral outlook, especially with respect to his intellectual non-conformism, as he was the first to point out in his Autobiographical Study.[35] They would also have a substantial effect on the content of psychoanalytic ideas "particularly in respect of the rationalist values to which it committed itself." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

[2] Based on the ancient Greek myth of King Oedipus and the drama of the same name by Sophocles. Oedipus unknowingly kills his father Lai and marries his mother Jocasta. The understanding of the Oedipal situation as a key factor in neurotic diseases arose from Freud's self-analysis, which he conducted after the death of his father. Freud first writes about Oedipus in 1897 in a letter to his friend Wilhelm Fliess: "I also found in my own example love for my mother and jealousy for my father ... and now I view this as a universal phenomenon of early childhood. And if this is so, then we can understand the enchanting power of King Oedipus." The explanation is given in Freud's book "Interpretation of Dreams" (1899). Freud introduced the term ‘Oedipus complex’ in 1910 in the article "On the special type of object selection in men": "A boy who starts to lust for his mother again and hate his father as a rival ... falls, as we say, under the influence of the Oedipus complex. He cannot forgive his mother for providing a service of sexual intercourse to his father rather than him, and regards it as an act of infidelity."Since then, the term has come into use among psychoanalysts of the classical school.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

In the light of the above, regarding the painfulness of the national question in the era of the revolution, let’s return with Solzhenitsyn to Perm and to the murder of Michael Romanov, Russia’s de-jure last Tsar, and ask ourselves: Don’t we avoid talking about the Perm closely-guarded crime precisely because it was committed by a group of local Chekists, and that all of them, unlike the assassins in Yekaterinburg, were ethnic Russian?

Three of the murderers of Michael and Johnson: Markov (standing), Zhuzhgov and Myasnikov

Recently, an American historian Professor Michael Khodarkovsky (not to be confused with Mikhail Khodorkovsky) wrote an article for the New York Times, [1] where he accused Bishop Tikhon, the confessor of President Putin, of inciting ‘anti-Semitism’, for failing to reject the ritual version of the massacre in Yekaterinburg. The American was sensibly answered by Vladimir Arkhangelsky via his blog in the Russian nationalist newspaper "Zavtra"[2]. In search of historical truth, one cannot reject any single version, including the fact that the atrocity was committed at the instigation of the American banker Jacob H. Schiff[3], who financed it; and this was the essence of Archangelsky's reply to Khodarkovsky. In fact, that the story of the ritual murder was not invented by the Patriarchate, but comes from the primary professional investigator Nikolai Sokolov,[4] who worked on fresh tracks soon after the July 16, 1917 massacre.

The article by Arkhangelsky confirms that the massacre in Yekaterinburg continues to attract much more attention in Russia and abroad than the potentially more significant – both for Russia and the West – crime committed in Perm. Archangelsky mentions in passing that "the text of the so-called abdication of Michael Romanov, to whom Nicholas II handed over power, contained the following words: ‘If such would be the will of our great Russian people.’” And then asks: "And what if these great people had wished to express their will not through the Constituent Assembly or through the Council of People's Commissars?It’s now that we say ‘the Great October Revolution’, but back in 1918 everything was unclear.”

Of course, it is possible to think in different ways about these atrocities that happened before the breakthrough of Admiral Kolchak's troops through the Ural Mountains. The Bolsheviks called this breakthrough ‘The Perm catastrophe.’ If the conditions had turned out to be favorable for Kolchak's forces, we would now be celebrating a very different anniversary.

One such variable was the degree of political maturity of the ‘great people’, as Michael so emphatically called the nation in his Manifesto. I have no doubt that Michael believed in the greatness of the Russian people. However, one cannot but admit that propaganda conducted by the Bolsheviks was most effective across Russia, and especially among the workers of the Urals. As early as the 1890s, the Russian intelligentsia, indulging in ‘legal Marxism’, seduced the workers into hatred towards the rich and the clergy who allegedly turned religion into ‘opium for the people’. No wonder John of Kronstadt,[5] a prominent cleric now canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, as early as before the revolution of 1905, had a prophetic vision of the ‘Black Cross’ overshadowing the Perm region that embraced then not just Perm but also Yekaterinburg and Alapaevsk. He shared this vision with a visiting group of Orthodox believers from Kungur saying that the Black Cross cast a gloomy shadow over the whole of Perm region.

Recently, Maria Bashmakova, in her article "The Faith of the Red Petrograd", gave a detailed review of the state of Orthodoxy on the eve of the Revolution, not only in the imperial capital, but throughout the country. "As a rule, being a devout Christian, a person treated Orthodoxy as part of a certain order, a set of rituals, the execution of which had been bequeathed to him by the fathers and was unshakable", writes Bashmakova. However, observance of the ritual did not necessarily mean deep faith. Confirmation of this may be found in the memoirs of Ivan Bunin:[6] "The people themselves said of themselves: "we are like wood — both club and icon may come of it, depending on who is working on this wood: Sergius of Radonezh[7] or Yemelyan Pugachev [8]." Bashmakova reasonably concludes: "Naïve faith easily changes to naive atheism, as happened with the majority of peasants."[9]

In the newspaper “Moskovsky Komsomolets”, Nina Pushkova describes how on the night of 12th to 13th June 1918, a group of Perm Chekists decided to “liquidate” Michael Romanov, who was exiled by the Cheka chief in Petrograd, Moisei Uritsky,[10] on the decision of the Council of People's Commissars. The atmosphere in the city was recalled by Markov, a participant in the murder: "... the time was not particularly calm. Especially worried were the devout old women who gathered near the churches. The priests were agitating against the Bolsheviks claiming they wanted to rob the churches. When the same ‘old ladies of God’ learned of Michael Romanov's stay in town, something like a pilgrimage began to the places where Michael was walking, just to get a glance at the future anointed by God".[11]

Pushkova continues: "The local Bolshevik, Gavriil Myasnikov, plotted the murder. He was a brute fostered in the ‘school of hatred’ of Yakov Sverdlov. The latter had often visited Perm preaching eradication of all human mercy and compassion among his local comrades-in-arms."

The reference to the ‘school of hatred’ of Yakov Sverdlov [12] is not accidental, for he is considered to be one of the recipients of financial support from the firm of Jacob Schiff in New York[13]. It does not matter if there was an obvious Jewish trail in the Perm villainy. It is important that the Chekists' hatred for the Romanovs, and the whole traditional way of the Christian country, was nourished from the same source as Lenin, Sverdlov and Uritsky, regardless of whether they were Jews or not. They knew that "their goals [could] only be achieved through the violent overthrow of the entire existing social order." And accordingly, "Let the ruling classes shudder before the Communist Revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose except their chains. They will get the whole world instead."[14]

This Manifesto, dictated by Marx, was the trigger for the greatest number of mass massacres of the 20th century.

In addition to Myasnikov, in the conspiracy participated other chekists[15] A.V. Markov, V.A. Ivanchenko, I.V. Kolpashchikov and N.V. Zhuzhgov. Although his participation in the murder was minimal, Myasnikov was its main ideological inspirer. Later, when he joined the ‘Workers' Opposition’ to Lenin, he fled abroad and in 1935 published, in Paris, the book "The Philosophy of Murder: Or How I Killed Michael Romanov" ( Философияубийства: илиКакяубивалМихаилаРоманова).[16]

According to his memoirs, he wanted to be ahead of the Bolshevik leaders in their desire to "remove Michael from circulation." In "The Philosophy of Murder" Myasnikov wrote: "No public group would ever be able to go for the murder of Michael ... I stand for it alone. It's hard ... Now I'm ready to kill. I am alone. I can talk about it to neither Lenin nor Sverdlov ... Imust take upon myself a supreme responsibility."

Let's agree with Pushkova that it was a bit of puffery and self-admiration, for Myasnikov knew very well that "If something happened, the fierce Sverdlov would stand up for his faithful student... he felt that it was Sverdlov who in a month or so would give a secret order to kill not only the Tsar and the Tsarina, but their children as well. Thus, began the bloody orgy of extermination on Russian soil".

Participants in the murder did not follow higher moral standards. "The attacker Zhuzhgov, e.g., appropriated to himself the Grand Duke’s cigarette case, as well as his monogrammed tobacco container, a mouthpiece and a knife. In 1921 hewas expelled from the police as a hopeless drunkard", notes Pushkova.

Within a week, essentially the same group of bandits attacked the Archbishop of Perm and Kungur, Andronicus (архиепископПермскийиКунгурскийАндроник). [17] They knew that Michael went to the church where the archbishop served. It is also known that the archbishop stood for the Constituent Assembly. (In his diary, Miсhael also praised the way he conducted the church service). And "Zhuzhgov made Andronicus dig his own grave, buried him alive and only then did Zhuzhgov discharge into his head the entire clip of his pistol ..."

In September 1918, another 42 hostages were shot to quell all queries about the fate of Michael.[18]

The faith in violence as the only means for the oppressed to achieve fairness and justice replaced for many Russians -- but not for the majority -- the Christian faith that had held the sway for hundreds of years.

This commitment to violence is precisely what Eskin called "a joint Russian-Jewish fall into communism". Trotsky, Sverdlov, Uritsky and his comrades broke all the commandments of Moses, not because they forgot them, but because Marx's supposedly fool-proof ‘scientific’ theory demanded it. The ‘Orthodox Christian’ murderers, such as Myasnikov and Zhuzhgov, pulled the triggers of their guns charged with this theory. And the leaders of the proletariat, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev remembered to ‘love thy neighbour’ only when distributing—or receiving-- nomenklatura[19] privilege coupons.

Alas, not only Russians and Jews fell into this ‘sin’, but all the peoples of the Russian Empire, as well as the peoples of virtually all the countries that participated in the First World War. However, it is the Russians and the Jews, as the two nations claiming to be messianic, who must take the main responsibility, for in their ‘Titanic pride’, they soared high on the wings of Icarus, stayed up the sky for 73 years, only to painfully hit the ground in 1991, returning the country back to capitalism, arguably of the worse variety than under the tsars. We must not blame each other, but blame ourselves first. Is it not what we repeat every morning when we read the Lord’s prayer asing to "… forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us"?

[1] “Reviving Old Lies to Unite a New Russia” by Michael Khodarkovsky. The New York Times, JAN. 11, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/russia-jew-bishop-lies.html

[3] See the biography of Schiff https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шифф,_Джейкоб and in English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

[4] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_familyhttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Соколов,_Николай_Алексеевич_(следователь). On the problems of the investigation: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Расследование_обстоятельств_гибели_царской_семьи and on the intervention of Jacob Schiff - Investigator Nikolai Alexeyevich Sokolov, who investigated the murder of the Tsar's Family, died in France. https://rusidea.org/25112307

[5] The English version of Wikipedia does not agree with the Russian one on John of Kronstadt, the English stressing his “anti-Semitism” while the Russian elaborates on his good deeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Kronstadt https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Иоанн_Кронштадтский

[6] Ivan Bunin (1870 – 1953) was the first Russian writer awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was noted for the strict artistry with which he carried on the classical Russian traditions in prose and poetry. He was a revered by anti-communist white emigres, European critics, and his fellow writers, who viewed him as a true heir to the tradition of Tolstoy and Chekhov. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Bunin

[7] Sergius of Radonezh (1314 –1392), also transliterated as Sergey Radonezhsky or Serge of Radonezh, was a spiritual leader and monastic reformer of medieval Russia. Together with Seraphim of Sarov, one of the Russian Orthodox Church's most highly venerated saints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergius_of_Radonezh

[8] Yemelyan Pugachev was the leader of the Peasants' and Cossacks’ Rebellion of 1773-75 that took place in Russia after Catherine II seized power in 1762. A disaffected ex-lieutenant of the Russian army, he organized insurrection of Yaik Cossacks against a background of peasant unrest and war with the Ottoman Empire. After initial success, Pugachev assumed leadership of an alternative government in the name of the assassinated Tsar Peter III and proclaimed an end to serfdom. The rebellion was a serious challenge to the Empress Catherine II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Rebellion

[9] Maria Bashmakova, “TheFaithofTheRedPetrograd” (ВеракрасногоПетрограда) http://www.fontanka.ru/longreads/vera/ See "The close dependence of the Church on the state, affirmed from Peter I, led to a close connection between the state and the Church, with the tsar being the ‘supreme head’, and the Holy Synod, headed by the chief procurator, representing ecclesiastical power and authority."

[10] Moisei Solomonovich Uritsky (Russian: Моисей Соломонович Урицкий; January 14, 1873–August 30, 1918) was a Bolshevik revolutionary leader in Russia. After the October Revolution, he was Chief of Cheka of Petrograd City. Uritsky was assassinated by Leonid Kannegisser, a Jew and military cadet, who then fled into the British embassy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisei_Uritsky

[12] Yakov Sverdlov (1885 –1919) was a Bolshevik party organizer and chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. He was born in Nizhny to Jewish parents Mikhail Izrailevich Sverdlov and Elizaveta Solomonova. His father was a politically active engraver who produced forged documents and stored arms for the revolutionary underground. Yakov joined the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1902, and then the Bolsheviks supporting Lenin. He was active fighter in the 1905 revolution while living in the Urals, including Perm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Sverdlov

[13] More about Jacob Schiff helping the Bolshevik revolution in Russia read a well-researched article “Wall Street & the November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution” by Kerry Bolton. October 28, 2013https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/10/wall-street-and-the-november-1917-bolshevik-revolution/ Or in Russian: "By order of the secret forces: How supporters of the version of the ritual murder imagine the death of Nicholas II”, 29 November 2017. https://www.znak.com/2017-11-29/kak_storonniki_versii_o_ritualnom_ubiystve_predstavlyayut gibel_nikolaya_ii

[14] https://www.marxists.org/russkij/marx/1848/manifesto.htm

[15] Chekist is an agent of the Cheka (ChK), generally an agent of Cheka and its descendants NKVD, KGB, and FSB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekist

[17] Archbishop Andronicus (Vladimir Nikolsky) (1870-1918) - from July 1914 the bishop of Perm and Solikamsk; in 1916 he became bishop of Perm and Kungur; in April 1918 elevated to the archbishop. During WWI, he led clerical assistance to the wounded and soldiers’ children. He was killed on 20 June 1918. https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/home/dokumenty/dokumenty-materialy-sledstvia/kommentarii/64

[18] The newspaper "Izvestiya of the Perm Gubernia Executive Committee" on 11 September 1918 gave a list of the hostages who were shot by decree of the Gubcheka: https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/putevoditel/istoriko-publicisticeskij-ocerk/5-k-rasstrelu-zaloznikov

[19] The nomenklatura (Russian: номенклату́ра; Latin: nomenclatura) were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy, running all spheres of activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura

​The Rabbis repent

As soon as I wrote the paragraph above, I received an email that the Israeli rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat had already apologised to the Russian people, saying: "We are to blame for everything and we must know why we are being driven away. We created Marxism and Leninism. We captured Russia. We killed 30 million educated Russians. We are wise men and sat down to rule over them."[1]

In fact, it turns out, Ben Porat has made such statements on videos for at least two years; moreover, he believes that revolutionary atheist Jews provoked Hitler's rise to power in Germany. Ben Porat is not alone. Yosef Mizrachi,[2] the American rabbi of the Orthodox denomination has been making similar statements. Of course, the American mega media[3] strongly impede access to information that undermines their monopoly on political correctness.

[1] See the message of 13 March 2018. http://communitarian.ru/news/v-rossii/pokayanie-ravvina-pered-russkim-narodom-my-zakhvatili-rossiyu-ubili-30-mln-obrazovannykh-russkikh_13032018 Unfortunately, in the translation from Hebrew to English there are some errors that have crept in, like "Hellenism" instead of Leninism.

[2] Yosef Mizrachi is a Sefardi Haredi rabbi and founder of DivineInformation.com, an Orthodox Judaism outreach organization, based in Monsey, New York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Mizrachi

[3] From 1990 to 2010, the number of major media corporations in the US declined from 50 to 5. https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used-by-mass-media/

MikushevichonMayakovsky

Recently, Vladimir Mikushevich (Владимир Микушевич)[1] recalled in the TV Kultura broadcast that, once, Boris Pasternak mentioned that Vladimir Mayakovsky was somewhat similar to Stavrogin in Dostoevsky's novel “The Possessed” (literally in Russian “The Devils”) [2]. Comparison of the Bolsheviks with ‘demons’ is not new. But Mikushevich put a well-founded emphasis on the heroic figure of Mayakovsky, whom Stalin once called "the best and most talented poet of our Soviet era" (and I quite agree with Stalin on this score! ).

Mikushevich believes, however, that even though Mayakovsky's rebellion was against God the Father, it was also in the name of God the Son. This could be accepted, but only with the proviso that good intentions are not always justified. Calling himself ‘The Thirteenth Apostle’, Mayakovsky put on himself the mantle of Russian theomachic messianism. Who does not remember these lines of Mayakovskuy’s poem "The Left March"?

DownwiththelawwhichforusAdam and Eve have left.We shall run to death The Nag of the Past.Left!Left!Left!

For Myasnikov, Zhuzhgov, Sverdlov, and other murderers, who acted "for ideological reasons", it was not at all important that Michael was a kind man and cavalier of the Cross of St. George, that he chose to be addressed as citizen Romanov, and that his secretary Johnson asked Uritsky not to separate him from his friend thus putting his own life in jeopardy.

Turn Left and March!Away with verbal rhetoric!Shut up, you speakers!Comrade Mauser[3]has the floor.

In this revolutionary atmosphere when violence was openly glorified, the murderers of Perm, or any “Left marchers” for that matter, could hardly see Michael’s Manifesto, which granted “our great Russian people" universal ballot for elections to the Constituent Assembly, as something more than a "verbal trickery " and a target for “Comrade Mauser."

As fate decreed, Mayakovsky later visited Perm and stayed at the same Korolevskiye Nomera hotel.In 1930, thouroughly disillusioned by Communist experiment, the ‘Thirteenth Apostle’ of Revolution turned the Mauser on himself. (Actually, there is a suspicion it was not a suicide)

“To get the bourgeoisie, we'll start a fire, a worldwide fire, and drench itin blood- the good Lord bless us!” was chanted by twelve armed ‘apostles’ of the World Revolution, marching through the streets of the revolutionary Petrograd in Alexander Blok’s eerie poem "The Twelve". Now we know how it all ended.

[2] Vladimir Mikushevich, «Master of the Game». 12 and 14 February 2018. https://tv.mail.ru/moskva/channel/1139/80900210/

[3] Mauser was a German semi-automatic pistol popular in WWI and Civil War in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser

Letter to Putin

Having lost faith in the ability of the Perm authorities to promote Michael's memory as a defender of the fatherland and a hero peacemaker, I took advantage of the all-Russia press conference of President Vladimir Putin on 15 June 2017 to ask him a question on behalf of the citizens of Perm:

15 June 2017One hundred years ago on 16 March 1917, Michael Alexandrovich Romanov signed the Manifesto, according to which the people had the right to determine the form of government by popular elections to the Constituent Assembly. Having been defeated in the elections, the Bolsheviks disbanded the Constituent Assembly. After August 1991, Russia rejected a one-party communist dictatorship. In 1993 the principle of popular elections was laid down in the current Constitution. The Association of the House of Romanov recognizes the Manifesto of Mikhail as the last legal act of the Russian Empire. When will the memory of Michael, as the "Tsar"-Democrat, who paved the way for the current constitution of Russia, be recognized and honoured at the highest level? Sincerely, V.G. Krasnov, the city of Perm, where Michael was executed without trial.http://moskva-putinu.ru/#page/formSincerely,W George Krasnow (http://wiki-org.ru/wiki/Краснов,_Владислав_Георгиевич)President, RAGA www.raga.orgI still haven’t had any reply.

Saints Boris and Gleb: a curious precedent

The disproportion of attention of the Russian public to Nicholas, at the expense of his younger brother, is so great that one has to ask: did the Russian public overcome the turmoil in their minds sown a century ago, which led to fratricidal civil war and purges, to the system of denunciations and ‘patriotism’, instilled by slave labor in the system of the GULAG? Why do we still wage a civil war between the two royal brothers who have long since reconciled with each other, forgiven each other, forgiven us sinners, and were both canonized by the Orthodox Church outside Russia in 1981? But didn’t Russia go mad, when, nearly a hundred years ago, almost the entire country lost its mind through the educational program of ‘likbez’ and submitted herself to the OBJECTIVE LAW OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (OLSD) through violent revolution and class struggle?

I hope this is not the case. After all, the deeper roots of Christian faith, as well as other faiths, nor simple decency, were not fully extinguished. However, three generations of brainwashing not only created a flawed information base, but also influenced the mentality of Russians[1]. The revolution was probably indeed the greatest in history, if three generations of citizens lived in a system of values ​​radically different from all surrounding countries and from Russia’s own past. Few people are now ready to follow Lenin’s ‘precepts’, but his slogan WHO WILL BEAT WHOM is still widely perceived by many as reasonable, especially if the MIGHT is on your side. But isn’t it better to try to resolve the conflict through reconciliation and compromise, rather than relying on might?

However, the compromise seems alien to our modern mentality and is even perceived as a "bourgeois" or "western" influence. At the same time, we forget that, historically, Russian people have always sought CONSENT, that is, a compromise, or, as they say now, a "consensus" - when both sides win something. That’s how it was at the veche, and at the communal village gatherings, and in the Cossack circle, and at the Zemsky Sobor. And in the Constituent Assembly, for sure, a compromise could have been found, despite its trend in favor of the left-wing radicals.

Instead of compromise, the Bolsheviks led the country along an extremely Western, even anti-Russian path. They boasted that Marxism-Leninism was based on the ideas of German philosophy, on the experience of French revolutionary socialism and the British labor movement. Under the influence of an inferiority complex among both Russian and Jewish Bolsheviks, the country rejected its own traditions, both the New and the Old Testament, and went to the most ‘progressive’ extremist West for wisdom - and got stuck in this ‘WEST trap’ [Translator’s note: the Russian word западня meaning ‘trap’ has the same root as the word Запад meaning ‘West’] for almost 73 years! Judging by the present illusions of the noisiest part of the Russian intelligentsia, Russia has not yet escaped from the ‘West trap’.

The corrosiveness of the Soviet mentality is apparent even among those who cannot be suspected of sympathizing with the Marxist experiment in Russia. In the summer of 2009, Ilya Glazunov[1] held a remarkable dialogue at his exhibition. President Putin was invited to the Gallery of Ilya Glazunov in Moscow, and the artist kindly became his guide. Their comments when they passed in front of the painting "Eternal Russia" were captured on video:

"But Boris and Gleb, [2] although being saints, had given the country away without a fight," said Putin, looking at the canvas where the saints were depicted. "They just lay down and waited to be killed. This cannot be a good example for us...”"I absolutely agree with you," said the artist, hurriedly.[3]

[1] I personally knew Glazunov and wrote "In memory of Ilya Glazunov, a visionary artist” http://www.raga.org/novosti/pamyati-glazunova-krasnov

[2] Boris and Gleb (Old Slavic: Борисъ и Глѣбъ, Russian: Борис и Глеб, Boris i Gleb; Ukrainian: Борис і Гліб), Christian names Roman and David, respectively, were the first saints canonized in Kievan Rus' after the Christianization of the country. Their feast day is observed on July 24 (August 6).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_and_Gleb

This conversation touched the famed Russian writer Vladimir Krupin [1] so much that I am moved to quote his indignant letter in full:

"Why does Putin not understand the meaning of the martyrdom of princes Boris and Gleb? This issue is complicated because the head of the government speaks at the artist's exhibition as if we were at a time when Cross processions were banned. Boris and Gleb are the first Russian saints. They are holy because they lived in God's way and fulfilled God's will, obeying the elder in the family.All of us, sinful, still have to grow up to understand the greatest feat of the first Russian saints Boris and Gleb. Why did these humble, innocently killed people, after their martyrdom, appear to the holy and blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky before the Battle on the Neva and the battle on Lake Peipus? Why did they come to help Dimitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo field? ... These are the vestiges of the Bolshevik or even Chekist thinking that call us to fight to the last breath. I hope that all of us will live long enough to witness when our authorities will finally understand that the country entrusted to them is not just a state, but Holy Rus…"

[1] Vladimir Krupin (b. 1941) is a major Russian writer, religious author and educator. A member of the Village prose movement and noted for his folklore-rooted style, he is best known for his 1980 Novy Mir-published satirical novel Zhivaya Voda (Aqua Vitae) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Krupin

"Eternal Russia" by artist Ilya Glazunov

Arseniy Zamostyanov

Responding to this episode was a journalist of the independent patriotic site “Pereprava” (meaning Crossing from Soviet mentality to New Russia).

Arseny Zamostianov says he has no intention to "mock Putin". He resists the "all-powerful fashion (among the intelligentsia) to scold Putin." He is convinced that, in this exchange, neither Putin nor Glazunov "indulged in hypocrisy or prevarication. Glazunov has been consistent in glorifying the feats of arms all his life, Putin - as an athlete, officer and politician – wants to project himself as the winner….”

Nevertheless, the young journalist thinks it was his Christian duty to explain to Putin that, "the holiness of Boris and Gleb was manifested in the fact that they ‘gave everything up without a fight’. True, not quite ‘everything’, but everything that is worldly and material”.

He made clear that disparaging remarks, made by Putin and Glazunov, about Saints Boris and Gleb are typical for whole generations of Russians raised in the Soviet era: "Humility. How difficult it is for a proud modern man to adapt this quality. From others, we demand humility every day …. Boris and Gleb became saints because they refused to transgress the Christian commandment of humility. They did not cling to life. Instead they prayed for us to warm our hearts".[1]

When I was teaching Russian studies in the United States, one of my sources was the book by Oxford professor Timothy Ware "The Orthodox Church"[2]. Timothy (Timofei) converted from the Church of England to Orthodoxy and later became a monk and bishop named Kallistos. He explained his conversion to Russian Orthodoxy thus: by glorifying Boris and Gleb in Kievan Rus, Orthodoxy, more than other denominations, approached the essence of Christianity through self-deprecation (kenosis) in imitation of Christ.[3] "Humility goes above pride”, says a Russian proverb rooted in the New Testament. In the opinion of Bishop Kallistos, the spirit of Christian humility inspires classical Russian literature from Fyodor Dostoevsky and Lev Tolstoy.

​Professor Ware’s book has become the standard introduction to the Orthodox Church across the English-speaking world. Orthodoxy continues to elicit great interest among Western Christians, and Professor Ware asserts that an understanding of its standpoint is necessary before the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches can be reunited.

Returning to the episode in the Glazunov Museum, no one expects that our warriors and politicians necessarily behave like Saints Boris and Gleb. However, Russia needs now, like never before, to honor ALL HER SAINTS, that have shone in the Russian Land. We need not to denigrate any of them.

[3] See the definition of Kenosis (Greek κένωσις - devastation, exhaustion, κενός - emptiness): a Christian theological term meaning the Divine self-emptying of Christ through his incarnation up to his voluntary acceptance of suffering and death on the Cross. The term is taken from Phil. 2: 7: "Self-emptied [εκένωσεν] Himself, taking the form of a slave ..." Biography of the Bishop: http://kallistosware.blogspot.ru/

​Four-image icon

The idea of ​​comparing the martyrdom of Nicholas and Michael with that of Saints Boris and Gleb came to me while studying Michael’s diaries and correspondence in the State Archive of the Russian Federation. I shared this idea with the writer on the Romanov theme Alina Chadayeva (АлинаЧадаева)[1] and her son Andrei Avdeyev (АндрейАвдеев).[2]. Being a talented enamel artist, Andrei had already created a series of enamel icons for a number of Russian churches and gave me the image of Archangel Michael as a present.

The Four-image Cross Icon of Saints Boris and Gleb, Nicholas and Michael painted by Andrei Avdeyev

We consulted the rector of the Church of St. John the Theologian in St. Petersburg, Father Gennady Belovolov, the creator and director of the Museum Apartment of St. John of Kronstadt (Музея-квартира Святого Иоанна Кронштадтского)[2]. He had already responded enthusiastically to the Perm initiative of honoring Mikhail Alexandrovich as a saint. In May 2010 he organized a forum in the Grand Duke’s palace in St. Petersburg. In conversation after the Forum, Father Gennady has given his blessing to make a sketch of the Four-image Cross Icon. The icon painter and enameller Andrei painted it in 2012[3].

Worshipping of the Four-image Icon in the Church of St. Nicholas in Chernogolovka on 10 June 2012

​Vladimir Guschik

I suspect that the less-than enthusiastic attitude toward Michael in present-day Russia is rooted in the same thing as the denigration of Saints Boris and Gleb. A drastic change in the mentality of the Russian people occurred during the 73-year-old distortion of Russian history and culture by Soviet propaganda. It changed not only politics and the economy, but the whole system of moral values. After all, it used no stops to glorify the "Greatest Revolution in the History of Humanity." As Lenin put it, "Anything that contributes to the victory of socialism is moral." Lenin’s attitude to morality echoed that of Karl Marx. As one German socialist put it, “The moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter.”[1]

This change was no less radical than the reform of Amenhotep IV in Ancient Egypt, or the anti-clerical extremism of the Great French Revolution. At least, the Russians, including our Jews, can claim the palm of primacy, for the ancient Egyptians and the French ‘Enraged Ones’ (“Enragés” ) were confused for no more than 15 years, while our folks marched in the wilderness for almost 73 years only to arrive back at CAPITALISM of an even more dubious variety.

I concluded my speech at the Solzhenitsyn House with the words of Vladimir Guschik (ВладимирГущик),[2] the Bolshevik commissar of the Gatchina Palace, where Michael was kept until he was deported to Perm. After fleeing to the ‘bourgeois’ Estonia, Guschik wrote: "Remembering this man, I think: With what kind of bright impulse will you, Russia, wash away his innocent blood? Having torn down this beautiful man, what will you give in return? Will you atone for the pure blood of the Last Michael?"

[1] The German socialist and philosopher Karl Vörlander recalled: “The moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter.”https://isreview.org/issue/82/marxism-morality-and-human-nature

[2] Vladimir Guschik later emigrated to bourgeois Estonia. He worked as an editor of the literary magazine "Panorama," maintaining relations with Nicholas Roerich. Since the spring of 1940, he was a secret Soviet intelligence agent in Estonia watching the local White Guards and carrying out economic espionage in favor of the USSR. On 4.01.1941 he was arrested and charged with serving in the White Army, having contacts with anti-Soviet circles and writing counter-revolutionary works. At the beginning of the war, he was taken from the Tallinn prison to the city of Kirov. He was sentenced to death, a penalty that was later commuted to ten years in prison. He died of lung sarcoma in 1947. http://russianestonia.eu/index.php?title=Гущик_Владимир_Ефимович

Mausoleum not only of Lenin

At the meeting in Sologubovka, I have already suggested a compromise version of the evaluation of the October Revolution. Say, let's reject the "Leninist path" of historical nihilism, when we destroy monuments that are not to the liking of the new authorities. Let Lenin rest where his fans laid him down, for they still exist in Russia and abroad. However, in order to consolidate society, it is necessary to recognize the drastic changes that have occurred since 1991. A concession to the opposition, which Lenin did not tolerate in his lifetime, is also necessary. Now let him endure it in eternity. It is easy and inexpensive to do so, if we convert Lenin's Mausoleum to a Mausoleum of the Revolution by including in it such exhibits from the opposition as the Manifesto of the Abdication of Nicholas II and the Manifesto of the Non-Renunciation of Michael II. Let the citizens of Russia see firsthand what the dispute was "all about".

As for Lenin, let him stay. Let his admirers know that his eternal sleep is enhanced by his favorite documents, such as Order No. 1 which abolished subordination in the army thus assuring Russia’s defeat in WWI. Let his admirers know that the decree of the Council of People's Commissars on the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly advanced Lenin’s goal of civil war. If the Communist Party of the Russian Federation considers these exhibits insufficient, let them place in the Museum the words of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" calling for violence. Of course, the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation may need to make an exemption because call for violence is unconstitutional. In view of the unreliability of the Internet age, it is better to carve these documents in marble, observing the style of the Sumerian ziggurat. Such peace-loving compromise gestures would signal the beginning of the atonement of the "pure blood of the Last Michael" inside the country.

Self-immolation

As for the subject of foreign policy, the peacemaker Michael had something to say. Recently, President Vladimir Putin unequivocally announced to the whole world that Russia is ready to repel any threat to its sovereignty, even thermonuclear. Putin is well aware of the high risk of self-immolation of the entire planet. He can be understood even when he says "Why should we have such a world if Russia won’t exist in it?" (Зачем нам такой мир, если в нем не будет России?)[1]. Any country has the right to ask such a question. Therefore, the Leninist excitement for beating on one’s chest “WHO WILL BEAT WHOM” should give way to mutual concessions as long as the risk of nuclear self-immolation hangs over the Earth. Only by mutual concessions it is possible to remove this threat to the existence of our beautiful planet.

Canadian professor Michel Chossudovsky (Мишель Чоссудовский) writes that the question of whether or not to be at war is being decided now by the bosses of the Western media, who, in advance, try to portray the real aggressor as a victim, in order to deceive the world’s public opinion. He left no doubt that the main threat comes from the United States. [2]

Another brave critic of US foreign policy, Nathanael Kappner[3], a New York Jew who converted to Russian Orthodoxy and is now an independent video commentator, blames the American neocons, who are mostly Jewish former Trotskyists, for driving Rex Tillerson out and pushing President Trump to a war with Iran. Where this kind of extremism is leading to, Russia already knows. It's time to remind the whole Planet about this.

At the height of the Cold War, Albert Einstein wisely warned us by saying: "I do not know what kind of weapons they will be fighting with in World War III, but inWorld War IV they will be fighting with sticks and stones". I think that this warning would have been supported by both the cavalry general Mikhail Romanov and artillery captain Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Each of them fought bravely and with dedication in the defense of their country in the First and Second World wars respectively. And each of them had also enough courage to fight for civil peace and justice.

Dr. Vladislav Krasnov, former professor and head of the Russian Department of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, head of the Association of Americans for Friendship with Russia RAGA (www.raga.org). The author of the book Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth («Новая Россия: от коммунизма к национальному возрождению») https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4184036/

[2] Michel Chossudovsky. “Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. The public is misled”. Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2012 book)https://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-a-world-war-iii-scenario-breaking-the-big-lie/5348384 Global Research, March 09, 2018

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.